Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
"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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
STOP The FCC Media Marxist Internet Takeover
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. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|