Neutralizing the Net
In response to a 17-word question about over-taxation at a town hall meeting last Friday, President Obama gave a 17-minute, 12-second, 2,500 word answer, overtaxing his listeners.
He claimed there was a whole lot of “misinformation” about the Health Care Reform law and that he was going to work hard to clean up all the “misapprehensions”.
“Let’s talk about that,” he began. But this week, he and Congress are also going to work hard to make sure that only he and his propagandists will be doing to the talking, thanks to the Net Neutrality bill (HR 3458) which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Congress will be considering this week.
According to the Wikipedia entry, “Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic.”
Well, that sounds “fair”, doesn’t it?
The entry continues with a simplified explanation, “If a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.”
That last line, though, “communication…not unreasonably degraded by other traffic.” Just what is that supposed to mean?
Conservative pundits say it’s Liberal language for destroying competition. In other words, if you have three popular Conservative bloggers and one unpopular Liberal blogger, the carrier has to ditch two of those popular Conservatives.
The Fairness Doctrine, for the broadcast and cable industry, which was struck down in the 1980s, made the same argument.
Carriers can also be forced to place content providers who displease the government on lower bands with weaker signals where they’re less likely to be read or heard. The government will cite discrimination against less popular bloggers.
For years, The National Endowment for the Arts has used federal funds to support politically-favored but culturally unpopular artists, dancers, and musicians. One famous, or infamous artist, created a work showing a cross in urine.
Not only was it religiously offensive, but…yuck. The NEA claimed it was freedom of expression.
On our tax dollars. And now they’re going to use our tax dollars to stop us from expressing our opinions on the Internet.
Major Internet content providers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can afford the highest fee levels, but all their capital won’t save them from the politically-correct ambitions of this bill. It won’t matter how weak their competition is; they have the backing of the U.S. government.
Just like General Motors.
As for us, the small-fry of the Internet, our voices will be relegated to the lowest level of the Internet food chain, on that weakest signal, the most we can afford, where no one will ever hear us or read us.
We won’t be able to afford to blog and reach a wider audience anymore than we can afford to buy a radio or television station, or publish a newspaper. Even now, it’s not easy to crawl our way onto one of the major search engines.
Service providers will have the lure of higher fees both from providers and their audience. Some have been on Obama’s bam-wagon all along.
We shouldn’t let this bill sneak by us unchallenged. The Liberals are desperate to silence us (they didn’t think we’d catch on to this Internet stuff. They thought we were too stupid, stuck back in the Fifties, hopeless dolts who couldn’t program our VCRs).
They sure got that wrong. We’re all over the Internet and now they want to stomp us out like the pests we are. They want to silence Glenn Beck and Rush, but Glenn is right: they’re really terrified of our power.
The Liberals need to pull the plug on us before we become self-actuating.
Before we become independent of them.
He claimed there was a whole lot of “misinformation” about the Health Care Reform law and that he was going to work hard to clean up all the “misapprehensions”.
“Let’s talk about that,” he began. But this week, he and Congress are also going to work hard to make sure that only he and his propagandists will be doing to the talking, thanks to the Net Neutrality bill (HR 3458) which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Congress will be considering this week.
According to the Wikipedia entry, “Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that is not unreasonably degraded by other traffic.”
Well, that sounds “fair”, doesn’t it?
The entry continues with a simplified explanation, “If a given user pays for a certain level of Internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access.”
That last line, though, “communication…not unreasonably degraded by other traffic.” Just what is that supposed to mean?
Conservative pundits say it’s Liberal language for destroying competition. In other words, if you have three popular Conservative bloggers and one unpopular Liberal blogger, the carrier has to ditch two of those popular Conservatives.
The Fairness Doctrine, for the broadcast and cable industry, which was struck down in the 1980s, made the same argument.
Carriers can also be forced to place content providers who displease the government on lower bands with weaker signals where they’re less likely to be read or heard. The government will cite discrimination against less popular bloggers.
For years, The National Endowment for the Arts has used federal funds to support politically-favored but culturally unpopular artists, dancers, and musicians. One famous, or infamous artist, created a work showing a cross in urine.
Not only was it religiously offensive, but…yuck. The NEA claimed it was freedom of expression.
On our tax dollars. And now they’re going to use our tax dollars to stop us from expressing our opinions on the Internet.
Major Internet content providers like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck can afford the highest fee levels, but all their capital won’t save them from the politically-correct ambitions of this bill. It won’t matter how weak their competition is; they have the backing of the U.S. government.
Just like General Motors.
As for us, the small-fry of the Internet, our voices will be relegated to the lowest level of the Internet food chain, on that weakest signal, the most we can afford, where no one will ever hear us or read us.
We won’t be able to afford to blog and reach a wider audience anymore than we can afford to buy a radio or television station, or publish a newspaper. Even now, it’s not easy to crawl our way onto one of the major search engines.
Service providers will have the lure of higher fees both from providers and their audience. Some have been on Obama’s bam-wagon all along.
We shouldn’t let this bill sneak by us unchallenged. The Liberals are desperate to silence us (they didn’t think we’d catch on to this Internet stuff. They thought we were too stupid, stuck back in the Fifties, hopeless dolts who couldn’t program our VCRs).
They sure got that wrong. We’re all over the Internet and now they want to stomp us out like the pests we are. They want to silence Glenn Beck and Rush, but Glenn is right: they’re really terrified of our power.
The Liberals need to pull the plug on us before we become self-actuating.
Before we become independent of them.
posted by Belle | 6:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home