That’s unfair to ObamaCare.GOP control of both the house and the Senate has not amounted to a hill of beans when it comes to slowing down Obama's aggressive power grab.
Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken.
The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.
Monday, February 23, 2015
"From Internet to Obamanet"
"Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
You know at first blush and on the surface I was for net neutrality, but when I read Obama's version of net neutrality I shuddered. It will be the fairness doctrine for the internet with a total take-over of speech. Period. It must not come to pass. It will be really bad news for everyone.
Only someone losing in the free marketplace of ideas would mandate something as embarrassing to the US Constitution as the "Fairness Doctrine." It is equal opportunity for bad ideas. Obama is for it and Hillary was behind it before him.
The fairness doctrine?
I thought that was dead... deader than dead.
The fairness doctrine is from the 1940s and mainly affected newspapers and broadcast journalism. It created a oligolithic media if you're old enough to remember when the three TV news anchors only differed in age and pedigree. The Reagan era undid this and set those media back to earlier times when different media voices belonged to different owners instead of one or two guy trying to speak for everyone. The Internet is media diversity on overdrive and the do-gooders worry that this diversity is bad for the narrative.
I mean, the worst case scenario is State Radio and TV as in Britain. Look what they turned into.
Sorry guys, let me clarify. It would be as if the Fairness Doctrine as an equivalent being introduced to the internet. I know the Fairness Doctrine no longer exists, but this new 'net neutrality' law is nothing remotely like it. Real net neutrality treats all data the same regardless of origin to destination. It would effectively render all ISP into dumb pipe providers, they couldn't be able to throttle or regulate certain data over others. I'd also would have liked to have seen all data that ISP regulate to become encrypted, but that's just me.
Telegrams, folks, telegrams. For example. History, anyone?
Also, I entirely reject the rubrik, characterization, spinning, and otherwise BS reframing of the debate over so-called, or even so-called not, net neutrality as "Obamanet." That is pure crap, whether or whether not involving pure ignorance, and I for one will not stand for it--
and, for that reason, I do not agree to overlook that sort of stupidity, no matter from whom or what source it comes.
How about just dealing with and addressing the issues at hand in the debate over the internet? They (those issues) are complex enough without injecting tremendous amounts of meme-crap into the discussion.
Not to mention tremendously bad analogies and, even worse, anti-ACS* tactics that so manifestly have backfired.
---
*Because I always must do this, so will I do it again, that thing about clarifying (aka, givin' a disclaimerin' thang): I was, and still am, an opponent of the ACA.
[This comment was deleted and then re-posted only to add the "*nick*" before "naming" in the first sentence, solely for clarification purposes.]
To this very day, I think that the strategy of *nick*naming the f'n ACA as "Obamacare" is one of the worst strategic choices ever. I thought that 1) it would prove to be ineffectual and 2) it would backfire, and not just initially, but continually (to the point that there really is no going back).
And so it has come to pass... .
---
This is frightening.
The democrat party is a fascist party now.
It's all about graft.
Remember all the finger wagging lectures from Obama on the importance of transparency?
This is why we should all work on our Morse code speeds, for the underground morse network.
Remember Obama saying he had no intention of restoring the Fairness Doctrine? Right after the first election when he was still trying to maintain the facade of moderation. Long time ago so the retards will have forgotten and the drones will distinguish the Fairness Doctrine from the more modern day fascism that is planned for us now.
The Idiocrats porn may prove to be a third rail. Unless the power's been turned off.
You can always tell when the fascists are trying to pull one over on us-- by the name:
Fairness Doctrine
Affordable Care Act
Net neutrality
Employee Free Choice Act (which removed the secret ballot in union elections)
As always, the devil is in the details. The FCC has refused to make the net neutrality plan public before it votes on approval this Thursday.
That's all I need to know.
The best angle from which to approach any problem is the try-angle.
thank you.
It's like everything the Choom Gang wants to change.
The whole idea is to make it more expensive.
AprilApple said...
This is frightening.
The democrat party is a fascist party now.
It's all about graft.
It always was.
Titus said...
The best angle from which to approach any problem is the try-angle.
thank you.
February 24, 2015 at 4:11 PM
Fascinating. I always thought your particular angular approaches came from behind or from the top.
Foolishness, again.
rcommal said...
Foolishness, again.
February 25, 2015 at 12:55 AM
Please be a little more specific. For all I know, you're referring to my comment about the BBC.
Imagine a world without Radio Caroline!
Do you have link which explains WTF is in this bill? Even my Congressman doesn't know and I'd expect him to of all people.
chickelit: If your congressman doesn't know, then you should be referring to the bill as "[lastnameofyourcongressman]net."
And you should continue doing that until he finds out, and if he does not find out, then you should be perpetually referring to him as that until he does find out or he is voted out (with your enthusiastic participation).
Start a meme that matters, that might actually hold out some little bits of hope, still, if meme you must embrace.
You also should be referring to the bill as "[lastnameofyoursenators]net", equally as relentlessly.
What you should NOT being doing is the same damn thing that was done w/r/t the so-called "ACA" and expecting a different outcome.
For crying out loud.
chickelit: I so get, by the way, why you're fond of Issa. However, even so, if any personage should be approached from the POV and with notion of "what have you done for me lately?", it ought to be those personages who are supposed to be standing in for us, either as reps or sens. Elected officials with great power, even if their power is less than it was before, ought not be given a pass on account of sentimentality, or even gratitude. "Elected officials" (still a very special elite, regardless of the shifting sands of their own, personal circles of control) get to emphasize their "official" status to an extreme degree precisely because voters, especially local ones, continually forget what the "elected" part means: that is to say, what is required of voters, and most certainly should be expected most of all from engaged, active voters.
Naming policy battles after whatever current president serves to provide cover for congress-critters (reps and sens alike), first and foremost.
Ponder that proposition, for a moment, or even a while.
Also, I just can't resist responding to this:
The whole idea is to make it more expensive.
That's not my idea, rhhardin, although it might well be yours.
We pay a whole lot for all of the decisions that so many different sorts have made.
I include you among the different sorts.
What a stutter--more to the point of it, I just f'd up. I called out the wrong person, a very stupid thing to do, and, more important, a bad thing to do.
I'm sorry, rhhardin. There's no excuse for that carelessness.
My point still stands, however, and I still stand by the point, inspired by this statement: The whole idea is to make it more expensive [edutcher 2/24/15 4:44 p.m.]
Smacking myself full, hard and solid, in order to remind me that, unless there is no doubt, cite and link first (at least privately) before publishing.
Post a Comment