FCC Discussing Control of Internet

[Contumacious]

Say "**** 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 "**** 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 "****", 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?

I can not believe that someone would accept enslavement so easily.

Either you work for the FCC or you are massively retarded.


.

 

[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.

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.

I said nothing about "super rich". I pointed out that Consummé's link was pure speculation and has no basis in historical pattern. Which it doesn't. And that his citations of past incidents were not and are not part of the FCC at all. Which they're not.

How you get "super rich" -- or any reference to economic class at all -- out of that is perhaps your secret.
Oh well.

 

[HenryBHough]

I can not believe that someone would accept enslavement so easily.

Either you work for the FCC or you are massively retarded.

Please, "retarded" is inappropriate for the genuinely inspired liberal "mind".

Wanna get her/his/its knickers in a twist?

Just say "Fairness Doctrine"!

 

[Pogo]

Say "**** 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 "**** 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 "****", 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?

I can not believe that someone would accept enslavement so easily.

Either you work for the FCC or you are massively retarded.

Still working on those links then?

Look, I toldja, 47 CFR 74. You can find it online.

Wassamatta? Not in there?

Well imagine that.

 

[Contumacious]

Note:

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

The submissive, leaky ass personality is telling. He used his mouth and tongue in the same manner as Monica Lewisnky.


.

 

[Pogo]

Note:

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

The submissive, leaky ass personality is telling. He used his mouth and tongue in the same manner as Monica Lewisnky.

Your frank admission that you came emptyhanded is noted, logged and lamented. Now you're on to some sort of bizarre sexual fantasies. It says much about your argumentative skills.

A Who's Who here: Henry and I didn't know each other before USMB but he and I are both veterans of the broadcasting profession. While I credit him for being what he claims, he can't do the same for my end and continually flails about coming up with what he apparently thinks are cutting remarks. It just chaps his hide that there's someone on this site in a position to call out his bullshit (e.g. post 27) and that I was here first so he couldn't get a foothold with it.

But at least he knows whereof he speaks. You on the other hand have descended to weird Lewinskyesque ad homs. And not a single quote from 47 CFR 74.

You lose, son. Do your homework next time.

 

[Contumacious]

Note:

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

The submissive, leaky ass personality is telling. He used his mouth and tongue in the same manner as Monica Lewisnky.

Your frank admission that you came emptyhanded is noted, logged and lamented. Now you're on to some sort of bizarre sexual fantasies. It says much about your argumentative skills.

A Who's Who here: Henry and I didn't know each other before USMB but he and I are both veterans of the broadcasting profession. While I credit him for being what he claims, he can't do the same for my end and continually flails about coming up with what he apparently thinks are cutting remarks. It just chaps his hide that there's someone on this site in a position to call out his bullshit (e.g. post 27) and that I was here first so he couldn't get a foothold with it.

But at least he knows whereof he speaks. You on the other hand have descended to weird Lewinskyesque ad homs. And not a single quote from 47 CFR 74.

You lose, son. Do your homework next time.

It appears that English Comprehension is not your forte.

In case it has somehow eluded you , my opinion is that the FCC is completely and totally unconstitutional.


So asking me to quote the CFR is retarded. It doesn't matter what the stupid sons-of-bitches wrote in there.


.

 

[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."


.

Note:

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

The submissive, leaky ass personality is telling. He used his mouth and tongue in the same manner as Monica Lewisnky.

Your frank admission that you came emptyhanded is noted, logged and lamented. Now you're on to some sort of bizarre sexual fantasies. It says much about your argumentative skills.

A Who's Who here: Henry and I didn't know each other before USMB but he and I are both veterans of the broadcasting profession. While I credit him for being what he claims, he can't do the same for my end and continually flails about coming up with what he apparently thinks are cutting remarks. It just chaps his hide that there's someone on this site in a position to call out his bullshit (e.g. post 27) and that I was here first so he couldn't get a foothold with it.

But at least he knows whereof he speaks. You on the other hand have descended to weird Lewinskyesque ad homs. And not a single quote from 47 CFR 74.

You lose, son. Do your homework next time.

It appears that English Comprehension is not your forte.

In case it has somehow eluded you , my opinion is that the FCC is completely and totally unconstitutional.


So asking me to quote the CFR is retarded. It doesn't matter what the stupid sons-of-bitches wrote in there.

Comprehend this, son... you came wobbling in here with a Chicken Little blog about "booga booga, the FCC is going to censor and shit". When you were called on that as speculation you floated more turds of some historical crap that had nothing to do with FCC (or censorship).

...When you were called on that you floated yet another one claiming, and I quote from post 29: "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." Whereupon I invited you to quote me anywhere that's mandated. Even told you directly where to look for it (and FCC doesn't write the CFR, dumbass). Then when you were called on that you started frothing at the mouth about how censorship could be citizen-driven simply by fiat of formal complaint -- which I then invited you to document that as well.

Again you failed. That's when you melted down into perverse sexual fantasies.
You're 0-for-4 son. Struck out every time. That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".

Wanna go for 5? Extra innings?
Essplain why the FCC is "unconstitutional". If you dare.

 

[lutraphile]

Agreed. The government ***** up everything it tries to fix. They need to keep their hands off of the Internet. It's developed where it is today perfectly fine.

...with net neutrality. Net neutrality is what keeps corporations that own ISPs from favoring content they own- the best example being favoring their own VOD services (Such as Hulu, which they own a stake in IIRC) over Netflix and iTunes.

 

[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."


.

Note:

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

The submissive, leaky ass personality is telling. He used his mouth and tongue in the same manner as Monica Lewisnky.

Your frank admission that you came emptyhanded is noted, logged and lamented. Now you're on to some sort of bizarre sexual fantasies. It says much about your argumentative skills.

A Who's Who here: Henry and I didn't know each other before USMB but he and I are both veterans of the broadcasting profession. While I credit him for being what he claims, he can't do the same for my end and continually flails about coming up with what he apparently thinks are cutting remarks. It just chaps his hide that there's someone on this site in a position to call out his bullshit (e.g. post 27) and that I was here first so he couldn't get a foothold with it.

But at least he knows whereof he speaks. You on the other hand have descended to weird Lewinskyesque ad homs. And not a single quote from 47 CFR 74.

You lose, son. Do your homework next time.

It appears that English Comprehension is not your forte.

In case it has somehow eluded you , my opinion is that the FCC is completely and totally unconstitutional.


So asking me to quote the CFR is retarded. It doesn't matter what the stupid sons-of-bitches wrote in there.

Comprehend this, son... you came wobbling in here with a Chicken Little blog about "booga booga, the FCC is going to censor and shit". When you were called on that as speculation you floated more turds of some historical crap that had nothing to do with FCC (or censorship).

...When you were called on that you floated yet another one claiming, and I quote from post 29: "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." Whereupon I invited you to quote me anywhere that's mandated. Even told you directly where to look for it (and FCC doesn't write the CFR, dumbass). Then when you were called on that you started frothing at the mouth about how censorship could be citizen-driven simply by fiat of formal complaint -- which I then invited you to document that as well.

Again you failed. That's when you melted down into perverse sexual fantasies.
You're 0-for-4 son. Struck out every time. That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".

Wanna go for 5? Extra innings?
Essplain why the FCC is "unconstitutional". If you dare.

Yet another super retarded question.

The miserable fascist scumbag wants to know why I oppose the FCC - a government agency - dictating to Broadcasters as to what they can, an can not do, with their privately owned enterprises?

 

[occupied]

If the providers had up until now invested in keeping our nation's internet capacity up to what is possible then I would buy some of their arguments but they have allowed us to fall behind the world. They have been poor stewards of a vital piece of national infrastructure and so now must endure some added regulation and scrutiny.

 

[Pogo]

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."


.

Note:

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

The submissive, leaky ass personality is telling. He used his mouth and tongue in the same manner as Monica Lewisnky.

Your frank admission that you came emptyhanded is noted, logged and lamented. Now you're on to some sort of bizarre sexual fantasies. It says much about your argumentative skills.

A Who's Who here: Henry and I didn't know each other before USMB but he and I are both veterans of the broadcasting profession. While I credit him for being what he claims, he can't do the same for my end and continually flails about coming up with what he apparently thinks are cutting remarks. It just chaps his hide that there's someone on this site in a position to call out his bullshit (e.g. post 27) and that I was here first so he couldn't get a foothold with it.

But at least he knows whereof he speaks. You on the other hand have descended to weird Lewinskyesque ad homs. And not a single quote from 47 CFR 74.

You lose, son. Do your homework next time.

It appears that English Comprehension is not your forte.

In case it has somehow eluded you , my opinion is that the FCC is completely and totally unconstitutional.


So asking me to quote the CFR is retarded. It doesn't matter what the stupid sons-of-bitches wrote in there.

Comprehend this, son... you came wobbling in here with a Chicken Little blog about "booga booga, the FCC is going to censor and shit". When you were called on that as speculation you floated more turds of some historical crap that had nothing to do with FCC (or censorship).

...When you were called on that you floated yet another one claiming, and I quote from post 29: "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." Whereupon I invited you to quote me anywhere that's mandated. Even told you directly where to look for it (and FCC doesn't write the CFR, dumbass). Then when you were called on that you started frothing at the mouth about how censorship could be citizen-driven simply by fiat of formal complaint -- which I then invited you to document that as well.

Again you failed. That's when you melted down into perverse sexual fantasies.
You're 0-for-4 son. Struck out every time. That's what we call in baseball the "Golden Sombrero".

Wanna go for 5? Extra innings?
Essplain why the FCC is "unconstitutional". If you dare.

Yet another super retarded question.

The miserable fascist scumbag wants to know why I oppose the FCC - a government agency - dictating to Broadcasters as to what they can, an can not do, with their privately owned enterprises?

So you can't answer that one either. Color me surprised.

Damn. And here I was hoping you'd start babbling about "there's no reference to broadcasting in the Constitution". Oh well. Can't have everything.

Here's you next lesson though son:
Broadcasters don't own the airwaves. WE do.

And we give it to them to milk however many millions they can off them, rent-free. How smart is that, right? Howdja like your town to provide you with a rent-free storefront where you could sell whatever you wanted? And if it didn't sell, hey, at least you're not paying rent.

"Privately-owned enterprises".... you're embarrassing yourself.

 

[Contumacious]

If the providers had up until now invested in keeping our nation's internet capacity up to what is possible then I would buy some of their arguments but they have allowed us to fall behind the world. They have been poor stewards of a vital piece of national infrastructure and so now must endure some added regulation and scrutiny.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


.

 

[HenryBHough]

...with net neutrality. Net neutrality is what keeps corporations that own ISPs from favoring content they own- the best example being favoring their own VOD services (Such as Hulu, which they own a stake in IIRC) over Netflix and iTunes.

Absolutely true. And a good thing if that were all the form of "net neutrality" being proposed were to do.

But it's based on "reclassifying" the internet as a common carrier and, therefore, subject to all sorts of regulatory excess and, of course, to countless fees and taxes. But since liberals love to tax they're blind to all the other potential abuse in the current efforts toward a gigantic power grab.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?

Consider that you're confronting a mindset that believes that broadcasting ought only be done by government and "altruistic" groups, left-wing fronts. Once you get past that he/she/it will make sense.

 

[Contumacious]

So you can't answer that one either. Color me surprised.

Damn. And here I was hoping you'd start babbling about "there's no reference to broadcasting in the Constitution". Oh well. Can't have everything.

Here's you next lesson though son:
Broadcasters don't own the airwaves. WE do.

And we give it to them to milk however many millions they can off them, rent-free. How smart is that, right? Howdja like your town to provide you with a rent-free storefront where you could sell whatever you wanted? And if it didn't sell, hey, at least you're not paying rent.

"Privately-owned enterprises".... you're embarrassing yourself.

FASCIST Fallacy #1 — The airwaves are "public"

There are two aspects to this that must be addressed separately. First, the only reason the airwaves belong to "the public" is because the federal government declared them so as part of the Federal Radio Act of 1927. That's it. But the reality is that the airwaves themselves aren't any more "public" than the plot of land that composes your city or town. When it was first discovered that we could encode audio and transmit it via radio waves, the feds realized the potential military applications and seized about half the spectrum and reserved it for military use. They made the rest available for use by citizen operators. Yes, there is a limited amount of spectrum just as there is a limited amount of land in your community, for example. There is also a limited amount of gold, diamonds, water, gravel, iron ore, maple trees or whatever. Just because there is a limited amount of something doesn't mean the state is right to commandeer it all and then "lease" it to private citizens as long as they agree to use it the way other people would like to see them use it. Let's face it; there is a limited amount of just about everything.."

 

[occupied]

If the providers had up until now invested in keeping our nation's internet capacity up to what is possible then I would buy some of their arguments but they have allowed us to fall behind the world. They have been poor stewards of a vital piece of national infrastructure and so now must endure some added regulation and scrutiny.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


.

Are you somehow unaware that coverage and speeds in America are increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world because the telecommunications companies are not building new capacity in spite of being one of the most lightly regulated and profitable sectors of the economy? Large regions of America have only one choice for an internet provider and download speeds generally suck when you get away from town. It's what happens when virtual monopolies are allowed to form. If the bastards had added capacity to keep up with the demands of their customers there would be no need to for premium fast lanes, they want to suck even more cash out of us and still not upgrade their systems.

 

[Pogo]

So you can't answer that one either. Color me surprised.

Damn. And here I was hoping you'd start babbling about "there's no reference to broadcasting in the Constitution". Oh well. Can't have everything.

Here's you next lesson though son:
Broadcasters don't own the airwaves. WE do.

And we give it to them to milk however many millions they can off them, rent-free. How smart is that, right? Howdja like your town to provide you with a rent-free storefront where you could sell whatever you wanted? And if it didn't sell, hey, at least you're not paying rent.

"Privately-owned enterprises".... you're embarrassing yourself.

FASCIST Fallacy #1 — The airwaves are "public"

There are two aspects to this that must be addressed separately. First, the only reason the airwaves belong to "the public" is because the federal government declared them so as part of the Federal Radio Act of 1927. That's it. But the reality is that the airwaves themselves aren't any more "public" than the plot of land that composes your city or town. When it was first discovered that we could encode audio and transmit it via radio waves, the feds realized the potential military applications and seized about half the spectrum and reserved it for military use. They made the rest available for use by citizen operators. Yes, there is a limited amount of spectrum just as there is a limited amount of land in your community, for example. There is also a limited amount of gold, diamonds, water, gravel, iron ore, maple trees or whatever. Just because there is a limited amount of something doesn't mean the state is right to commandeer it all and then "lease" it to private citizens as long as they agree to use it the way other people would like to see them use it. Let's face it; there is a limited amount of just about everything.."

You going for some kind of record here boy?

I just told you --- we don't "lease" airwave space. We give it away. When you get a broadcast license, you get permission to use 101.7 or whatever frequency -- you don't pay for it. You get it from We the People, via the FCC, and then you're free to milk money from We the People.

Following this? We give you the storefront. For nothing. Regardless how much you can make off it.

And as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, before the FRC was created to corral all that, what was on the air was anarchy. All the FCC does is keep that anarchy from happening again by sorting out who gets permission where.

You really need better links. Everything you've posted here tonight is pure bullshit.

 

[occupied]

So you can't answer that one either. Color me surprised.

Damn. And here I was hoping you'd start babbling about "there's no reference to broadcasting in the Constitution". Oh well. Can't have everything.

Here's you next lesson though son:
Broadcasters don't own the airwaves. WE do.

And we give it to them to milk however many millions they can off them, rent-free. How smart is that, right? Howdja like your town to provide you with a rent-free storefront where you could sell whatever you wanted? And if it didn't sell, hey, at least you're not paying rent.

"Privately-owned enterprises".... you're embarrassing yourself.

FASCIST Fallacy #1 — The airwaves are "public"

There are two aspects to this that must be addressed separately. First, the only reason the airwaves belong to "the public" is because the federal government declared them so as part of the Federal Radio Act of 1927. That's it. But the reality is that the airwaves themselves aren't any more "public" than the plot of land that composes your city or town. When it was first discovered that we could encode audio and transmit it via radio waves, the feds realized the potential military applications and seized about half the spectrum and reserved it for military use. They made the rest available for use by citizen operators. Yes, there is a limited amount of spectrum just as there is a limited amount of land in your community, for example. There is also a limited amount of gold, diamonds, water, gravel, iron ore, maple trees or whatever. Just because there is a limited amount of something doesn't mean the state is right to commandeer it all and then "lease" it to private citizens as long as they agree to use it the way other people would like to see them use it. Let's face it; there is a limited amount of just about everything.."

That does not apply to download speeds, which is limited only by the equipment used. The internet providers have created an artificial shortage to jack up the prices and only the technologically illiterate buy their argument that they need to charge high volume customers more.

 

[Contumacious]

If the providers had up until now invested in keeping our nation's internet capacity up to what is possible then I would buy some of their arguments but they have allowed us to fall behind the world. They have been poor stewards of a vital piece of national infrastructure and so now must endure some added regulation and scrutiny.

Wuuuuuuuuuuuuut?


.

Are you somehow unaware that coverage and speeds in America are increasingly lagging behind the rest of the world because the telecommunications companies are not building new capacity in spite of being one of the most lightly regulated and profitable sectors of the economy? Large regions of America have only one choice for an internet provider and download speeds generally suck when you get away from town. It's what happens when virtual monopolies are allowed to form. If the bastards had added capacity to keep up with the demands of their customers there would be no need to for premium fast lanes, they want to suck even more cash out of us and still not upgrade their systems.

Fine . Start your own ISP.


But letting the motherfuckers cease control of the internet is NOT the answer.

.