The Rabid Conservative

Think Right, Act Right, Be Right.

Busted: FCC in Collusion on Net Neutrality

with 2 comments


I haven’t commented much on the whole net neutrality issue, but these findings should alarm anyone who believes in the free expression of ideas and thoughts on the Internet.  Now on the surface, we think that Net Neutrality is a good thing.  But when we look at the players behind it and what their motivations are, we start seeing something is wrong with the entire net neutrality idea.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act detail that the lib-crat advocacy group Free Press detail how they have been in direct collusion with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to push for a general regulation of the Internet.  E-mails between Free Press president John Silver and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps coordinating efforts ahead of the December 2010 vote by the FCC to make proposed FCC net neutrality rules official have been made public.  Communications between Free Press’ and FCC communications staffers to garner public support for net neutrality have been captured under FOIA and are now public as well.

What do we know about Free Press?  Well, they were founded by the editor Robert McChesney of the Monthly Review, “an independent Marxist journal” and John Nichols, a contributor for the Nation which calls itself the “flagship of the left.”  Free Press has very close ties with MoveOn.org and is basically part of the Save the Internet coalition consisting of other notable liberal groups like SEIU, ACORN, and ACLU, making Free Press ripe for George Soros pump money.

It’s no secret that Free Press wants government regulation of the Internet; we’ve known that for years; it’s a common desire of FCC commish Mike Copps.  But the fact that we have members of the FCC who are directly working with Free Press makes this entire issue alarming because it exposes, yet again, how the Obama Administration is engaging in hypocrisy “about special interests influencing the democracy” (his words).  In this video, Obama urges Congress to limit special interest money as a means of getting the GOP out of his way.

Obama urging Congress to limit special interest money in politics.

However, it’s quite alright for Free Press to get involved in policy-making.  Oh wait, we weren’t supposed to know about that.  Thankfully, the FOIA makes clandestine government ventures more difficult to hide.

Generally, we all should understand that liberals, progressives, and Democrats are all about growing government and making it more intrusive into peoples’ lives.  We understand that the FCC wants this.  We see Free Press wanting net neutrality along with the FCC.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that, just by the ‘guilt by association’ tactic, net neutrality means big government control.

Why?  To answer this question, we have to see through the entire idea of the semantic term “net neutrality”.

By the way, we’re finding out that most people don’t actually know what net neutrality is, so let me elaborate here:

Net neutrality is about giving the government the right to control and regulate the Internet (ironically), specifically regulating the speed at which all data crosses networks.  It is designed to ensure equality in load times for every website, regardless of function. 

While this sounds good on the surface, the issue is, what if a company wants to pay for additional bandwidth so that their site gets a faster load time, particularly in highly congested areas where everything is slow from too many users?  We geeks call this ‘bandwidth throttling’.   The left doesn’t like this because it has it in for ‘evil corporations’.  They think the Internet should be free for all, but with net neutrality, it isn’t!

The cruel irony here is that the big content companies like the idea because with regulation, costs rise.  When costs go up, the smaller businesses vying for a piece of the pie get squashed because they don’t have the money to play in the government-run sandbox.  They go out of business, leaving those large evil corporations monopoly-level control.  Or so we think, because for that to happen, government gets the control, not the big evil corporations.  So the big boys have to comply with the government’s whims.

It’s a pretty confusing helix of technobabble and word warping which, in the end, puts people on the wrong side of the issue.  So, let Magnus make it clear:

At the end of the day, it’s quite clear that the left tries to implicate big corporations in doing the very thing that they themselves are doing to wrest control of the Internet.  And we all know that once the government gets it’s claws on the Internet, the concept of free expression dies in favor of big government regulation.

Advertisements

Written by The Rabid Conservative

June 2, 2011 at 8:15 pm

Posted in Political

Tagged with , , ,

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Um, no. Hand in your “geek” card, son — if you posted this on slashdot, you’d get Hiroshima rammed up your backside, and justly so:

    “Net neutrality is about giving the government the right to control and regulate the Internet (ironically), specifically regulating the speed at which all data crosses networks. It is designed to ensure equality in load times for every website, regardless of function.”

    Not. Even. Close.

    Net neutrality is the current regulatory state of the Internet — it means that your ISP can’t favor some kinds of traffic over others, or block traffic based on its content. It’s not designed to “ensure equality in load times” — it’s designed to keep your ISP from censoring your net access. Comcast is not allowed to choke Netflix traffic so they can pimp their own pay-per-view service. AT&T is not allowed to choke internet telephony services like Vonage so they can force you onto their services.

    None of them are allowed to block, let’s say, blog traffic, regardless of which part of the political spectrum the blogger in question inhabits. *That’s* what net neutrality is: the net as we currently know it. In other words: net neutrality is not something that has to be imposed, but something that has to be revoked. Which is what the big players are trying to do.

    Even more succinctly: net neutrality IS competition/capitalism/freedom. Period.

    “[W]hat if a company wants to pay for additional bandwidth so that their site gets a faster load time, particularly in highly congested areas where everything is slow from too many users? We geeks call this ‘bandwidth throttling’”

    Bandwidth throttling (also called “traffic shaping”) is what happens when an ISP limits traffic on certain “ports” — usually, those used by networked gaming or filesharing (which are the ones most commonly “abused”). The ISP might limit filesharing traffic during peak hours, or close it off altogether until the 11pm-6am range. The only legal barrier to them doing this, under the current practice of net neutrality, is the very contract they’ve signed with their customers. Nothing else.

    You’re correct that net neutrality prevents companies from paying for privileged load status — but if there’s a compelling reason why anyone should *have* to do so in the first place (or should be allowed to do so), I’m missing it. Likewise: rewriting the rules so that a small handful of already-profitable companies can make even more money than they already do? That’s a far larger “overreach of big-government” than net neutrality has ever been.

    Rob

    June 29, 2011 at 11:51 pm

  2. A few things:

    First, don’t come here and call me “son”; that’s a good way to get your comments flushed into the drink. You’re not my father and I don’t go disrespecting you in an outright way, so don’t disrespect me, okay?

    Second, I don’t need validation from the drones on Slashdot or some “geek card” to be confident in my IT abilities, skills, and experience. I could really care less what other IT professionals think of me – I have a wall full of academic and industry achievements, a long history of IT work, a pretty deep publications list, and plenty of folks who consult with me on a whole host of IT issues. That’s all the validation I need.

    Now, onto the discussion at hand:

    The biggest issue in this entire net neutrality argument is that there is no agreement between conservatives and liberals on the definition of net neutrality. Your definition is the classic liberal view, mine the classic conservative view. So you come here and tell me about how wrong I am, as if the liberal view on things is somehow the all-knowing truth. If you want the term “net neutrality” to mean making all the bits equal, fine. My beef here is that, once again, we see the liberal change agents in the FCC trying to upend the whole thing and stick it to the handful of corporations who make it big.

    Or do we all suddenly love Microsoft?

    I’m all for competition. And the point of making all the bits and bytes compete against one another for dominance would be just fine, except I don’t want the government coming in and telling corporations what they will and won’t do with their networks and resources. If Comcast wants to block Netflix outright, it’s well within their rights to do so. After all, customers are using their service and network. And the infrastructure that they do not own – well, they lease from other providers. Capitalism isn’t about bits and bytes; it’s about dollars. That’s why it’s called “CAPITAL”ism. It’s the “other” golden rule – he who has the gold makes the rules.

    In general, this entire argument is the classic government vs. corporation argument. I’m not a big fan of rules written to unbalance the playing field towards any one corporation, but I’m also not a big fan of the rules being written to prevent corporations from shaping and filtering what they want. In general, I am not a big fan of goverment rules.

    If we don’t like what a corporation does, do business with someone else. So called government-sponsored ‘fairness’ is rarely fair, thanks in part to the lobbyists and kook special interests that manipulate the activities of a healthy government.

    Rick

    June 30, 2011 at 8:54 am


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: