Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2227
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Robert_McChesney

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soros
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. (Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...t-regulations/

http://StopNetRegulation.org

"Chas. Chan" wrote in message
...

Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project...

No it ****ing isn't.

Jim

On Dec 27, 5:23*pm, "Clave" wrote:
"Chas. Chan" wrote in message

...



Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project...

- No it ****ing isn't.
-
- Jim

OMG ! - God Has Spoken . . .
An We Must Heed His Every Word -not- ~ RHF

19% of eligible voters is never a tidal wave, 'cept maybe in your
bathtub. The only lesson from November is that the Supreme Court needs
some impeaching. Corporations are not people and money only equals
speech at a whore house.

On Dec 27, 7:15*pm, dave wrote:
- 19% of eligible voters is never a tidal wave,
- 'cept maybe in your bathtub.

So 'Special-Dave' if your Darling Liberals Win
by a percent or two -it's-
THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE !

-but- 'Special-Dave' if your HATED Conservatives
should Win by Double-Digits -it's- FRAUD [.]

Just so much more "Facts Have A Liberal Bias"
from 'Special-Dave'. ~ RHF

On 12/27/2010 10:18 PM, RHF wrote:

.
- The only lesson from November is that the
- Supreme Court needs some impeaching.

'Special-Dave' you are such an 'imp'
and a real 'peach' too . . .
Tells Us 'Special-Dave' How Did The US Supreme
Court Factor into the November 2010 Elections...

By:
David Brooks
La Jornada

Four years ago, Warren Buffett, the third richest man on the planet,
said, "Of course there is a class war, but it's my class, the rich
class, that is waging the war, and we're winning."

This mid-term election in the United States is a front of the class war.
Business interests and the wealthy have declared war against anything
that dares to impose controls on them, limit their activities or touch
their fortunes, and they say so, explicitly and openly.

The vast majority of funds that are invested in what is already the most
expensive mid-term election in history (it is expected to exceed,
perhaps by far, 3.5 billion dollars) comes from billionaire donors,
companies and groups representing the wealthy class.

For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has invested some $75 million
in this election, almost all to support Republican candidates. In
January, Chamber president Thomas Donohue said his association intended
"to carry out the biggest and strongest voter-education effort and
promotion of issues in our nearly one-century-old history." He is
keeping his promise.

The organization American Crossroads, a project of Karl Rove, former
campaign and political strategist for George W. Bush, receives donations
of up to one million dollars from wealthy donors to support conservative
candidates across the country.

Multinational companies channel funds through these organizations (using
laws that allow them to conceal the identity of some donors) to promote
their corporate agendas to weaken government control over their
operations, the impact of health reform, efforts to curb the change in
climate and other things considered "anti-business" that inhibit
business. They also promote policies that favor "free enterprise" and
"free trade."

Many companies take advantage of a recent decision by the Supreme
Court of the United States (known as the Citizens United case) that gave
companies the same rights of "freedom of expression" enjoyed by
individuals. Through this decision, they can fund propaganda for or
against candidates to promote their agenda.

That ruling maintained that "independent expenditures" made by companies
in the electoral debate "do not lead to corruption or the appearance of
corruption" and though they "can generate influence on, or access to,
elected officials, that does not imply that these officials are corrupt.
And the appearance of influence or access will not cause voters to lose
faith in this democracy."

This was denounced as a serious abuse of the democratic process by
champions of electoral reforms who seek to reduce the influence of money
in elections.

I haven't seen any mobile guard towers around here,,, yet, or drones
buzzing around either.Sometimes WLBT 3's Skycopter 3 (keeping track on
road traffic/auto accidents/whatever) Helicopter with Mary Wieden in
there giving us videos on tv news.Sometimes a police Helicopter looking
for somebody.
cuhulin

On Dec 27, 6:35Â*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:


Dear Sir,
You don't know what you're talking about. Â*The government has no
place 
in preventing ISPs from raping us up the ass in the same way
the cable 
companies do. Â*ISPs should be able to limit the number of
web sights 
we can access to less than 100, 50, or 5 depending on the
package we 
choose. Â*Anybody who thinks there should be a law to
prevent this is a 
Communist. Â*Corporations are our friends and the
government is always 
always evil.
Sincerely, 
I.M. Klueless

On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...bert_McChesney

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. *In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i...

http://StopNetRegulation.org

k000k a d000dle do

On Dec 27, 9:46*pm, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:





Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...p?indid=2227ht....

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. *In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i...

http://StopNetRegulation.org

k000k a d000dle do


Timmy has again reached his limits.