FCC Discussing Control of Internet

[Contumacious]

REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.

Ignorant Dingle Berry let me share some historical facts with you:


1- in the mid 1860's the Ape Lincoln administration introduced paper money in order to pay for the war of northern aggression - the scumbags in the SCOTUS ruled that greenbacks were Constitutional because they were redeemable in gold and silver. In 1935 the sons-of-bitches ruled that the greenbacks are constitutional even if they are not redeemable;

2- In 1914 the Congresscritters enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act in order to TAX narcotics. Subsequently the scumbags who claim to be federal judges ruled that the intent of the law was to criminalized narcotics and that the Harrison Act was Constitutional.


In a nutshell, the sons-of-bitches are determined to acquire power and eliminate rights by any means necessary. Americans are stupid, Jonathan Gruber.


.

 

[mamooth]

Anyone old enough to remember when if you wanted a phone you could only go to AT&T? And if you wanted a phone in that other room, you'd have to go to them too? And how you could score a phone on the black market, but then AT&T could detect the extra voltage drop on your line and start charging more, so you took the phone apart and disabled the bell so it wouldn't drop the voltage...... ?

Those were the days. Damn gummint fucked that all up.

About 10 years back, my parents remodeled the house.

They still had the rotary dial phone built into the wall. I would proudly show it off to friends. Some of them had no idea how to make it work.

That phone was taken out as part of the remodel.

AT&T came by and TOOK IT BACK. I found that hilarious.

Oh, phone cops.

 

[Pogo]

No clue what "my favorite cause" is supposed to mean but no, I've seen Hughes dish speed, and it's absolute crap.

That isn't intended to relate to the Net Neutrality issue. It's an illustration of where my, for one, exorbitant ISP dollars are going. And it ain't taxes.

That would be government.

I haven't used Hughes internet in over give years but, back then, slow as it was, it put internet in places where there were no fibers, cables or microwave installations for a thousand miles. I would have thought they might have picked up the speed but apparently not.

Just this week I looked at dumping cable for DISH internet but decided against it. They're pretty clear about their speeds and data quotas and do honest comparisons to terrestrial providers. In my case the data quota would be OK for what I do now but I do use some TV off the cable and would shift that to internet viewing so the quota would no longer work out and speed would be questionable for streaming.

The new internet/landline (or mobile) packages sans cable they have announced are attractive but the few TV channels I regularly use aren't available online so I'm stuck for now. What I really resent is that in order to get the six channels I use I have to pay for 200 and the program providers keep upping their per-connection fees which drive up the monthly bill several times a year. If government is going to mess with internet it also needs to mandate a-la-carte TV cable. Each channel might cost more but the aggregate would be less.

That's one thought. Me, I gave up TV (I've had both satellite and cable at this locale) when it became obvious that anything I would want from TV I could get from the internets, with the exception of live sports, which I'd have to pay for either way. Actually now I have it on radio via SiriusXM if it's daytime, and by skywave by night. They haven't figured out a way to sell natural phenomena yet...


I've seen my cable company playing around with fiber lately...
-- but they're the same outfit that charges me for not watching TV.

 

[HenryBHough]

In the day you only rented the phone.

When that ended there was an offer to buy existing rotary phones on the cheap.

Or you could just keep them until somebody got around to picking them up.

Some folks figured they could just sit on 'em and nobody would ever come.

They were wrong.

 

[Pogo]

REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.

Ignorant Dingle Berry let me share some historical facts with you:


1- in the mid 1860's the Ape Lincoln administration introduced paper money in order to pay for the war of northern aggression - the scumbags in the SCOTUS ruled that greenbacks were Constitutional because they were redeemable in gold and silver. In 1935 the sons-of-bitches ruled that the greenbacks are constitutional even if they are not redeemable;

2- In 1914 the Congresscritters enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act in order to TAX narcotics. Subsequently the scumbags who claim to be federal judges ruled that the intent of the law was to criminalized narcotics and that the Harrison Act was Constitutional.


In a nutshell, the sons-of-bitches are determined to acquire power and eliminate rights by any means necessary. Americans are stupid, Jonathan Gruber.

None of that is the FCC, stupid. Nor is there any such implication in the proposal, nor has it ever done that in the past. What you have there is a Chicken Little blog. Extra crispy.

 

[HenryBHough]

Say "Fuck You Obama" on the radio and the station that let you say it will be instantly reported to The FCC by at least ten liberal zealots and a fine won't be long in coming.

Say "Fuck You Obamna" on the internet and nothing happens.

Not today.

 

[Pogo]

Say "Fuck You Obama" on the radio and the station that let you say it will be instantly reported to The FCC by at least ten liberal zealots and a fine won't be long in coming.

Say "Fuck You Obamna" on the internet and nothing happens.

Not today.

What you're leaving out is that (a) the interest would be on the word "Fuck", not the word "O'bama", and (b) that FCC on its own would do nothing; it would only act in response to complaint from the public, which is who it's there to serve.

 

[mamooth]

I think Henry's point is that he wants to censor the internet, and that he's enraged because the dirty liberals just stopped him from doing that.

 

[Contumacious]

REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.

Ignorant Dingle Berry let me share some historical facts with you:


1- in the mid 1860's the Ape Lincoln administration introduced paper money in order to pay for the war of northern aggression - the scumbags in the SCOTUS ruled that greenbacks were Constitutional because they were redeemable in gold and silver. In 1935 the sons-of-bitches ruled that the greenbacks are constitutional even if they are not redeemable;

2- In 1914 the Congresscritters enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act in order to TAX narcotics. Subsequently the scumbags who claim to be federal judges ruled that the intent of the law was to criminalized narcotics and that the Harrison Act was Constitutional.


In a nutshell, the sons-of-bitches are determined to acquire power and eliminate rights by any means necessary. Americans are stupid, Jonathan Gruber.

None of that is the FCC, stupid. Nor is there any such implication in the proposal, nor has it ever done that in the past. What you have there is a Chicken Little blog. Extra crispy.

What a miserable retard


Creeping Censorship
By Tibor R. Machan


In 1927 the US Senate nationalized the electromagnetic spectrum – then called the ether – which are the airwaves where radio and TV signals travel. They made this socialist move because of sheer impatience – the Navy asked the Department of Justice to allocate property rights in the medium but instead the Senate nationalized it.

Ever since then, the medium has been treated as belonging to us all, regulated "for us" by the feds. In fact, of course, the feds pretty much regulated the medium for the few firms that had gotten a foothold in the broadcast industry so that for decades thereafter ABC, CBS and NBC formed an oligopoly and could nearly completely control entry into the field. For a long while, in fact, if someone wanted to enter broadcasting, one would be required to go to Washington, DC, and make a case to the FCC that no other radio or television broadcaster would be "harmed" – lose listeners and viewers – by this entry into the market. Can you imagine – if you wish to open a restaurant, you need to demonstrate to a bunch of bureaucrats that other restaurants will not lose customers? Insane, yet it was the law."


.

 

[HenryBHough]

I think Henry's point is that he wants to censor the internet, and that he's enraged because the dirty liberals just stopped him from doing that.

Please refrain from projecting your deficiency in reading comprehension onto others.

 

[Contumacious]

Say "Fuck You Obama" on the radio and the station that let you say it will be instantly reported to The FCC by at least ten liberal zealots and a fine won't be long in coming.

Say "Fuck You Obamna" on the internet and nothing happens.

Not today.

What you're leaving out is that (a) the interest would be on the word "Fuck", not the word "O'bama", and (b) that FCC on its own would do nothing; it would only act in response to complaint from the public, which is who it's there to serve.

And of course a member of the public is defined as anyone who supports censorship and obscenity would be defined as ANY message the sons-of-bitches want to censor,\.

.

 

[Pogo]

REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.

Ignorant Dingle Berry let me share some historical facts with you:


1- in the mid 1860's the Ape Lincoln administration introduced paper money in order to pay for the war of northern aggression - the scumbags in the SCOTUS ruled that greenbacks were Constitutional because they were redeemable in gold and silver. In 1935 the sons-of-bitches ruled that the greenbacks are constitutional even if they are not redeemable;

2- In 1914 the Congresscritters enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act in order to TAX narcotics. Subsequently the scumbags who claim to be federal judges ruled that the intent of the law was to criminalized narcotics and that the Harrison Act was Constitutional.


In a nutshell, the sons-of-bitches are determined to acquire power and eliminate rights by any means necessary. Americans are stupid, Jonathan Gruber.

None of that is the FCC, stupid. Nor is there any such implication in the proposal, nor has it ever done that in the past. What you have there is a Chicken Little blog. Extra crispy.

What a miserable retard


Creeping Censorship
By Tibor R. Machan


In 1927 the US Senate nationalized the electromagnetic spectrum – then called the ether – which are the airwaves where radio and TV signals travel. They made this socialist move because of sheer impatience – the Navy asked the Department of Justice to allocate property rights in the medium but instead the Senate nationalized it.

Ever since then, the medium has been treated as belonging to us all, regulated "for us" by the feds. In fact, of course, the feds pretty much regulated the medium for the few firms that had gotten a foothold in the broadcast industry so that for decades thereafter ABC, CBS and NBC formed an oligopoly and could nearly completely control entry into the field. For a long while, in fact, if someone wanted to enter broadcasting, one would be required to go to Washington, DC, and make a case to the FCC that no other radio or television broadcaster would be "harmed" – lose listeners and viewers – by this entry into the market. Can you imagine – if you wish to open a restaurant, you need to demonstrate to a bunch of bureaucrats that other restaurants will not lose customers? Insane, yet it was the law."

Horseshit. There's no such thing. What you had to demonstrate (and still do) was that you have something to serve your community with that that community needs. What you have here is ANOTHER hair-on-fire blog.

Don't try to sit on the internet and bullshit me, son. I've been dealing with the FCC since 1966. I've been over entire broadcast licence applications and renewals. You obviously haven't been in smelling distance.

But you go ahead son -- quote us the part of the law that backs up this bullshit. 47 CFR part 74 is where you wanna look.

 

[HenryBHough]

What you're leaving out is that (a) the interest would be on the word "Fuck", not the word "O'bama", and (b) that FCC on its own would do nothing; it would only act in response to complaint from the public, which is who it's there to serve.

Twist and spin.

1. Obviously the FCC interest would be on the word "fuck" which is generally considered an obscenity. "O'Bama" (love the nod to his alleged Irish family ties!) has not yet been so classified but we needs must be patient.

2. Obviously the FCC would only react in response to a complaint from the public which it's there to serve. Of course you would be first to file a complaint alleging having taken offense at the word "fuck" but actually in the "O'Bama" reference.

Sly old dog!

 

[Contumacious]

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.

Ignorant Dingle Berry let me share some historical facts with you:


1- in the mid 1860's the Ape Lincoln administration introduced paper money in order to pay for the war of northern aggression - the scumbags in the SCOTUS ruled that greenbacks were Constitutional because they were redeemable in gold and silver. In 1935 the sons-of-bitches ruled that the greenbacks are constitutional even if they are not redeemable;

2- In 1914 the Congresscritters enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act in order to TAX narcotics. Subsequently the scumbags who claim to be federal judges ruled that the intent of the law was to criminalized narcotics and that the Harrison Act was Constitutional.


In a nutshell, the sons-of-bitches are determined to acquire power and eliminate rights by any means necessary. Americans are stupid, Jonathan Gruber.

None of that is the FCC, stupid. Nor is there any such implication in the proposal, nor has it ever done that in the past. What you have there is a Chicken Little blog. Extra crispy.

What a miserable retard


Creeping Censorship
By Tibor R. Machan


In 1927 the US Senate nationalized the electromagnetic spectrum – then called the ether – which are the airwaves where radio and TV signals travel. They made this socialist move because of sheer impatience – the Navy asked the Department of Justice to allocate property rights in the medium but instead the Senate nationalized it.

Ever since then, the medium has been treated as belonging to us all, regulated "for us" by the feds. In fact, of course, the feds pretty much regulated the medium for the few firms that had gotten a foothold in the broadcast industry so that for decades thereafter ABC, CBS and NBC formed an oligopoly and could nearly completely control entry into the field. For a long while, in fact, if someone wanted to enter broadcasting, one would be required to go to Washington, DC, and make a case to the FCC that no other radio or television broadcaster would be "harmed" – lose listeners and viewers – by this entry into the market. Can you imagine – if you wish to open a restaurant, you need to demonstrate to a bunch of bureaucrats that other restaurants will not lose customers? Insane, yet it was the law."

Horseshit. There's no such thing. What you had to demonstrate (and still do) was that you have something to serve your community with that that community needs. What you have here is ANOTHER hair-on-fire blog.

Don't try to sit on the internet and bullshit me, son. I've been dealing with the FCC since 1966.

All you have done thus far is kiss their asses.

So It take it that by "dealing" you mean dutifully giving Lewinskys to the Commissars.


.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.

Ignorant Dingle Berry let me share some historical facts with you:


1- in the mid 1860's the Ape Lincoln administration introduced paper money in order to pay for the war of northern aggression - the scumbags in the SCOTUS ruled that greenbacks were Constitutional because they were redeemable in gold and silver. In 1935 the sons-of-bitches ruled that the greenbacks are constitutional even if they are not redeemable;

2- In 1914 the Congresscritters enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act in order to TAX narcotics. Subsequently the scumbags who claim to be federal judges ruled that the intent of the law was to criminalized narcotics and that the Harrison Act was Constitutional.


In a nutshell, the sons-of-bitches are determined to acquire power and eliminate rights by any means necessary. Americans are stupid, Jonathan Gruber.

None of that is the FCC, stupid. Nor is there any such implication in the proposal, nor has it ever done that in the past. What you have there is a Chicken Little blog. Extra crispy.

Correct, the FCC never locked down on radio the way opponents of Net Neutrality propose that they'll lock down on the internet. Likewise, the internet isn't only accessible by the super rich, and, historically, the super rich haven't been able to drown out other peoples' podcasts with stronger internet bandwidth as they apparently did with radio signals. You implying that the lack of regulation allowing the potential for the super rich to try and monopolize bandwidth means that their doing so is a real danger is equally as paranoid as assuming that giving the FCC control puts us in danger of them regulating all political speech online.

Seems if we've got Chicken Little's on one side of the argument, we've got 'em on both sides.

 

[HenryBHough]

Note:

Having prepared the coffee in the breakroom of an NPR affiliate does not quality one as a broadcaster.

 

[Pogo]

Say "Fuck You Obama" on the radio and the station that let you say it will be instantly reported to The FCC by at least ten liberal zealots and a fine won't be long in coming.

Say "Fuck You Obamna" on the internet and nothing happens.

Not today.

What you're leaving out is that (a) the interest would be on the word "Fuck", not the word "O'bama", and (b) that FCC on its own would do nothing; it would only act in response to complaint from the public, which is who it's there to serve.

And of course a member of the public is defined as anyone who supports censorship and obscenity would be defined as ANY message the sons-of-bitches want to censor,\.

I'm sure you can cite evidence here too, right?

 

[Pogo]

Note:

Having prepared the coffee in the breakroom of an NPR affiliate does not quality one as a broadcaster.

Take heart Henry. One of these days the copy reader will get stuck in traffic. It'll be your big break. Be ready.

 

[Contumacious]

REGULATIONS APPLY TO BOTH WIRED AND WIRELESS PROVIDERS


Okay, I'll readily admit that this whole “net neutrality” thing confuses me. That a provider can't put one source over another seems fair. But, it also seems to me yet another attempt to add government controls to the internet. That bothers h**l out of me and I don't want ANYBODY messing with my internet access.


Read the story @ FCC Chief Proposes Stricter Net Neutrality Rules For Broadband Popular Science and add your two cents.


Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet @ Government Takes Step to Regulate the Internet - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com which says they want to regulate the internet like phone service

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals."

Bunch of hair-on-fire speculative horseshit. The FCC has never regulated content other than public slander and obscenity.

Ignorant Dingle Berry let me share some historical facts with you:


1- in the mid 1860's the Ape Lincoln administration introduced paper money in order to pay for the war of northern aggression - the scumbags in the SCOTUS ruled that greenbacks were Constitutional because they were redeemable in gold and silver. In 1935 the sons-of-bitches ruled that the greenbacks are constitutional even if they are not redeemable;

2- In 1914 the Congresscritters enacted the Harrison Narcotic Act in order to TAX narcotics. Subsequently the scumbags who claim to be federal judges ruled that the intent of the law was to criminalized narcotics and that the Harrison Act was Constitutional.


In a nutshell, the sons-of-bitches are determined to acquire power and eliminate rights by any means necessary. Americans are stupid, Jonathan Gruber.

None of that is the FCC, stupid. Nor is there any such implication in the proposal, nor has it ever done that in the past. What you have there is a Chicken Little blog. Extra crispy.

Correct, the FCC never locked down on radio the way opponents of Net Neutrality propose that they'll lock down on the internet. Likewise, the internet isn't only accessible by the super rich, and, historically, the super rich haven't been able to drown out other peoples' podcasts with stronger internet bandwidth as they apparently did with radio signals. You implying that the lack of regulation allowing the potential for the super rich to try and monopolize bandwidth means that their doing so is a real danger is equally as paranoid as assuming that giving the FCC control puts us in danger of them regulating all political speech online.

Seems if we've got Chicken Little's on one side of the argument, we've got 'em on both sides.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it",


George Santayana

 

[HenryBHough]

Note:

Having prepared the coffee in the breakroom of an NPR affiliate does not quality one as a broadcaster.

Take heart Henry. One of these days the copy reader will get stuck in traffic. It'll be your big break. Be ready.

Nor does having poured the tea for a PBS fund-raiser qualify.

But keep trying.