Mark Levin interviews the FCC Commissioner on massive internet takeover

[Vigilante]

 

[LoneLaugher]

uumm, he's on 3-6 in the afternoon here on the West Coast.. Just so ya know

-Geaux

I'm just glad that assclown Sean Hannity got dropped and a real talk show host took his Cumulus Media prime time slot. Limbaugh then Savage then Levin makes a perfect day for me, not having to turn off the radio for that trailer trash asshole Hannity.

I have to be honest, Michael Weiner, just doesn't cut it for me. Sometimes he makes strong points, but at a drop of a hat, he's off talking about Teddy, what he had for lunch, his fathers pants, and not to eat these mushrooms, amongst a hundred other things he gets fixated on.....and his INCESSANT SELF PRAISE makes the Obumanation seem almost normal! I don't care how many Ph.D's he has, he's just not that informative! Hannity isn't much better, but, most of the time, he will stay on a topic, and his fill ins are excellent. BUT FEW do it as good as Levin, and less have the knowledge of Constitutional law that he has.

The chief complaint about Michael Savage is also the chief reason for his popularity. He isn't just politics, he talks about life, and he does so with depth of knowledge and character that an asshat like Hannity could never match. Hannity was the amateur, Savage was the professional talk show host.

And my problem with Hannity was simple. He would set up his show so that two loons would have at each other and make him seem reasonable by comparison. His show was about drama, not about education. He was the right wing Jerry Springer, and I quickly tired of his trailer trash radio program like everyone with an IQ above 90 did. There's a reason he lost that Cumulus Media slot. Eventually the sugar high trailer trash crap must give way to true talent.

Thank God that talent rose to the top!

I can't stand Savage, or Hannity...Levin is okay when he actually discusses a topic...when he starts yelling, I turn him off. Any moron can yell into a microphone can call it passion.

Have you ever listened to John Bachelor? I enjoy his program as he gets in-depth with experts on diverse topics ranging from foreign policy to Federal politics. His program often focuses on topics rarely heard in the other shows. He'll do history one segment, then switch over to the antics and machinations of China the next. Always with experts in the discipline.

As far as I can tell, he has been the only one bringing information out of Hong Kong on the freedom movement happening there, and the Chinese crackdown. No one is covering he Ukraine but John. He has an NYU professor each week who is an expert on Russian history as well as modern Russian body politick....and they detail the crap that the Obama administration is trying to pull....

All in all, its a really good radio show.

The truth is, I can only stand to listen to so much talk radio no matter who it is. I like Andrew Wilkow on Sirius XM, but I only have access to so much, just the Cumulus Media and XM radio, that's it.

"We're right, they're wrong....end of story!" That Wilkow is a hoot!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Levin can't break into drive time radio. Why not? He is so awesome.

Has nothing to do with the thread, dumbass.

Sure it does. The thread was left wide open by the OP which told us NOTHING about what the commissioner actually said to the asshole. As a result....I could discuss the last pimple I had on my ass and I'd be on topic.

 

[Pogo]

Once again --- posting images is not articulating a point.

That's why I always say, if you can't articulate your own point, well it just might be you ain't got one.
e.g. post 1...

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Once again --- posting images is not articulating a point.

That's why I always say, if you can't articulate your own point, well it just might be you ain't got one.
e.g. post 1...

So you're siding with restricting internet access then?

 

[Vigilante]

Once again --- posting images is not articulating a point.

That's why I always say, if you can't articulate your own point, well it just might be you ain't got one.
e.g. post 1...

Making a point with satire, so far ABOVE your IQ that you look at the moon as a piece of cheese!

 

[Stephanie]

We tried to warn the people what would happen they put him office

Now he's steamrolling over you too

bravo good frikken job

call you worthless Reprsentative's in Congress and demand they stop this

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Contumacious]

Uh...... "wallah"??
We must be in deep intellectual erudiion here. "Wallah". Sounds like an old dialect you'd hear in the Sea Islands off Georgia.

"Wallah" --- wasn't he Beaver Cleaver's big brother?

"Wallah" -- where I keep my driver's licen.

"Wallah". Ohmyfuckingod.

So essplain to us all, Pissyante -- who's "taking over" the internets? What are they gonna do with it?

Oh this is gonna be golden....

You haven't heard??

Greg

One might to say that when it comes to control of internet, it will apply to all, conservatives and 'liberals' alike. They are looking at blogs, messageboards and businesses.

THE RADIO ACT OF 1927 AS A PRODUCT OF PROGRESSIVISM

By Mark Goodman

Mississippi State University

ABSTRACT
Congress passed the Radio Act of 1927 to bring order to the chaos of radio broadcasting. In the process, Congressional representatives had to deal with several free speech issues, which were resolved in favor of the Progressive concepts of public interest, thereby limiting free speech. This study examines how Congress intended radio licensees to interpret and practice free speech. In conclusion, it was found Congressmen feared radio's potential power to prompt radical political or social reform, spread indecent language, and to monopolize opinions. Therefore, the FRC was empowered to protect listeners from those who would not operate radio for "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

 

[Mustang]

Here it comes.....

The Right Scoop ^
Mark Levin had on his show tonight Ajit Pai, the FCC Commissioner who is trying to expose how Obama and his cronies at the FCC are going to takeover the internet. Pai told Levin that after the 2012 election, Obama told the FCC what he wanted them to do and wallah, now we have a 332 page Internet takeover plan. That’s why he calls it Obama’s plan. To sum up the takeover, Pai characterized it like this: “We’re adopting solutions that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have.” Sound familiar? Listen to the...

Yes, it does sound familiar because it's the same old nonsensical fear-mongoring for financial profit and political gain. And, as usual, the conservative moths fly right into the light bulb.

 

[Vigilante]

Here it comes.....

The Right Scoop ^
Mark Levin had on his show tonight Ajit Pai, the FCC Commissioner who is trying to expose how Obama and his cronies at the FCC are going to takeover the internet. Pai told Levin that after the 2012 election, Obama told the FCC what he wanted them to do and wallah, now we have a 332 page Internet takeover plan. That’s why he calls it Obama’s plan. To sum up the takeover, Pai characterized it like this: “We’re adopting solutions that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have.” Sound familiar? Listen to the...

Yes, it does sound familiar because it's the same old nonsensical fear-mongoring for financial profit and political gain. And, as usual, conservatives moths fly right into the light bulb.

I see Groucho's cigar, burned your brain!

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The PRESIDENT's "plan" comes with Obama-promises:

* * * * The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

• No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
• Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.

Net Neutrality President Obama s Plan for a Free and Open Internet The White House


Obama promises and terms and conditions are always fully reliable, needless to say: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan.

 

[Mustang]

Here it comes.....

The Right Scoop ^
Mark Levin had on his show tonight Ajit Pai, the FCC Commissioner who is trying to expose how Obama and his cronies at the FCC are going to takeover the internet. Pai told Levin that after the 2012 election, Obama told the FCC what he wanted them to do and wallah, now we have a 332 page Internet takeover plan. That’s why he calls it Obama’s plan. To sum up the takeover, Pai characterized it like this: “We’re adopting solutions that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have.” Sound familiar? Listen to the...

Yes, it does sound familiar because it's the same old nonsensical fear-mongoring for financial profit and political gain. And, as usual, conservatives moths fly right into the light bulb.

I see Groucho's cigar, burned your brain!

Not at all. I just tire of the willful and woeful ignorance of some people. But I must say that it's amazing to me that so many of the conservative rank and file haven't caught on to the scam being perpetrated on them ad nausum year after year. Hell, even a mutt knows better than to mess around with a skunk a second time.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The FCC is "issuing" its new rules on Thursday. It is not being shared for the perusal of the American people prior to its issuance. It seems to fundamentally alter how ISPs are "viewed" and thus how they may be "regulated," according to some leaked advanced word ( such as the interview of one of the commissioners shared by Mark Levin -- see the OP).

I am curious why they are doing all of this shit under the veil of such secrecy? Why no period for public scrutiny and comment?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The entire discussion over the so-called "net-neutrality" topic is confused because what it appears to come down to is more (likely heavy handed) government control over an avenue of speech.

No one article can capture both sides of (and/or variations on) the debates. But here is a "primer" of sorts.

FCC and Net neutrality What you really need to know - CNET

It is not clear that the FCC can pass a "Rule" (no matter how lengthy) and define for itself the concept that the internet is an entity that will now come under its dominion. Congress (see the last sentence of the piece I just cited) is capable of passing a law. That too will need great scrutiny, but at least if Congress does it, it's a law and not a self-proclaimed bit of regulation.

 

[Contumacious]

INTRODUCTION

In the Radio Act of 1927 Congress recognized broadcasters' right to "free speech," 1 meaning those granted licenses to operate AM radio stations could do so free of government censorship or programming. However, a review of the Progressive influences on the Radio Act indicates that Congress never intended for radio licensees to use free speech to create an open, vibrant marketplace of ideas through radio broadcasting. What Congress sought for the new medium was a voice that would articulate middle class ideology. 2

This research does not refute the existing history written on the text of the Radio Act, which is examined after the major issues have been considered. The search is for the underlying ideology in the Act that may not be found by only reading it and accepting a literal understanding of "free speech." From an ideological approach, the question is how did Congress intend for radio licensees to practice "free speech?" To answer that question, this paper will review the Progressive tenets contained within the Radio Act and the language at its heart, particularly the creation of a commission to regulate radio in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

In this examination of the Radio Act, Progressive influence is evident in many places. The Progressive influence can be found in the 1926 Congressional debate that preceded President Calvin Coolidge's signature in 1927. Much of that debate and many provisions of the law focused on free speech issues. The Supreme Court decisions resulting from convictions under the Espionage Act of 1917 suggest that the justices shared a limited, Progressive definition of free speech, indicating both branches of government held similar presumptions on the federal right to regulate the marketplace of ideas.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The idea that some regulation of otherwise "free" speech is valid is not a "progressive" notion alone.

It is insanity to suggest that our Republic's Constitutional devotion to freedom of speech somehow means that it is permissible (in the name of unfettered "free" speech) to advise the enemy (in times of war, etc) about our troops' movements, etc. If you commit libel or slander against someone else, they can sue your ass. That is NOT a violation of our precepts of free speech. If you yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater when there is clearly no fire nor a threat of fire, and you cause a stampede thereby injuring others, you ARE subject to perfectly valid criminal prosecution.

The airwaves -- in early broadcast days -- were subject to some regulation to prevent anybody from monopolizing OUR airwaves in a way that could prevent OUR access to it.

This so-called "net-neutrality" push is allegedly along those same lines. But the devil is often found in the details; so any efforts to impose yet another layer of massive federal regulation over it should be subject to close and unyielding scrutiny. Such "regulation" should NOT come from the FCC. If it comes at all, it should come from a law passed (after actual and meaningful debate) by Congress.

 

[B. Kidd]

The FCC is "issuing" its new rules on Thursday. It is not being shared for the perusal of the American people prior to its issuance. It seems to fundamentally alter how ISPs are "viewed" and thus how they may be "regulated," according to some leaked advanced word ( such as the interview of one of the commissioners shared by Mark Levin -- see the OP).

I am curious why they are doing all of this shit under the veil of such secrecy? Why no period for public scrutiny and comment?

'Cause that's how tyrants rule.

 

[SteadyMercury]

We tried to warn the people what would happen they put him office

Now he's steamrolling over you too

bravo good frikken job

call you worthless Reprsentative's in Congress and demand they stop this

Stop what exactly?

I'd wager you couldn't explain what is being debated in this topic if you were awarded a new double-wide for doing so.

Prove me wrong, explain exactly how anyone is being steamrolled?

 

[Contumacious]

PROPER USE OF RADIO: THE AUTHORITY OF THE FRC

As keepers of the public welfare, the FRC was the instrument ensuring that radio was not used for improper speech. Specifically, the Radio Act banned "obscene, indecent, or profane language," 58 but those who would use radio for radical change also could be silenced by denying them access to the airwaves, White and Dill told their colleagues. Proper use of radio was the second major issue debated by Congress.

In writing the bill, some members of Congress sought to guarantee that audiences heard only the morally "right" kind of material. Sen. Hiram Bingham of Connecticut thought the Commerce Department should handle the technical aspects of radio while the Post Office could handle "improper" communication of thought, since it already had expertise in that area. 59 South Carolina Sen. Coleman L. Blease was willing to create the FRC if he knew what the politics and religion of the commissioners were. He wanted to know if someone could go on the air and say "he came from a monkey." To prevent that from happening, Blease introduced an amendment that would have prohibited all radio discussion of evolution. He justified his position with an appeal to authority: "On this proposition I am on the side of Jesus Christ." 60 Dill and White argued that the intent of the legislation was not to create an open forum for public debate; as written the bill would prevent such misuse of the airwaves, defeating the Blease amendment.

Dill, White, and Hoover made public statements to the New York Times, reflecting similar views on what speech would be proper for broadcasters. In explaining the Radio Act to a reporter, White said, "The bill seeks in other ways to make more certain a proper regard for public as opposed to private right." 61 Dill agreed. Broadcasters needed as much freedom as possible, the senator wrote in the Times, "without endangering the interests and the rights of the public." 62 Hoover said the first responsibility of any regulation would be to determine "who may broadcast." 63 Dill noted that the language "public interest" was the result of a conference with White when they were seeking additional language to go with "convenience and necessity," which Hoover had used at the radio conferences, borrowing the term from railroad and utility regulation. Public interest, convenience, and necessity was crucial language, explained Dill, because "their words would empower the Commission to limit the amount of advertising, prohibit programs that it decided were harmful to the public as a whole, and to refuse to renew licenses of those who disregarded its rulings." 64 To Dill, such a concept of public interest did not violate broadcasters' First Amendment rights because "broadcasting was a privilege." 65 Dill did not intend for the FRC to censor broadcasters but to serve as the cop on the beat who would "see to it that no one uses it who does not promise to be good and well-behaved." 66"

.