Last week I said that Obama’s failure to control the dialogue on the Internet would cause him to try to take it over.
This week he is doing that, and once again the sheep are falling for his BS – thinking he is doing it for their own good. The Internet has been wildly successful, exactly because it wasn’t under government control.
Everything Obama does is about power and his imaginary legacy.
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2014/11/obama-proclaims-i-am-the-antichrist-the-islamic-mahdi-3059770.html?utm_medium=verticalresponse&utm_content=beforeit39snews-verticalresponse&utm_term=http%3A%2F%2Fb4in.info%2FjhYo&utm_source=direct-b4in.info&utm_campaign=
futeret, I saw the crudely photoshopped image elsewhere, beforeitsnews allows lots of goofy stories, but the advantage of net neutrality is that the offbeat websites won’t be stuck in the ‘slow lane.’ If there are slow lanes and fast lanes, the lockstep mass media will get the fast lanes and Tony’s and others’ websites might take too long to load.
This was never about the trojan horse of ‘fast’ or ‘slow’ internet access, the heart of it is control over what will be permitted to appear on the internet, the equal time requirement that would shut down sites like Tony’s when he’s declared to be non-compliant. This was covered years ago, along with who the core people who were pushing it: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/04/06/glenn-beck-net-neutrality-pits-free-speech-against-free-press/
Russell, ‘equal time’ for broadcast meadia went away decades ago, and Glen Beck is an unreliable source of info
“Obama outlined four principles Monday for how an open Internet should operate:
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.
http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2014/11/10/obama-urges-fcc-to-support-net-neutrality-in-strongest-way/
THINGS ARE CHANGING:
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/11/11/top-hacker-chicago-nuke-attack-planned-2015/
The government says they have to step in and regulate the internet because of something that hasn’t happened, but might. Yeah, that’s a great reason to let them just get in there, because they always just do what they say they’re going to do, and never overstep. No thanks. What agency has ever stopped issuing regulations? They find new things they have to regulate, or new ways to regulate every year.
Plus, it’s the same guy who said they had to cram Obamacare through, even though about 80% of Americans were happy with their healthcare before.
This is another solution looking for a problem. Very troubling that people are so willing to let the FCC take control. If the FCC had been controlling the internet from the start, it wouldn’t be the internet.
It has happened though. Comcast is forcing Netflix to pony so Comcast won’t throttle their content.
The answer is not to regulate more, but regulate LESS. Comcast can do that because they DO have a monopoly. A government sanctioned, approved and supported one.
How long do you think they would keep customers if the customers had a choice?
That proves it. We need a complete government takeover to solve a minor problem.
Fill in the blank. (There are no wrong answers)
Obama is trying to seize control of _____.
Is this a Zen riddle? The answer, grasshopper, is everything and nothing.
http://madworldnews.com/ebola-newsroom-jihadists/
It may be interesting to see how this plays out. I don’t see how something like Net Neutrality can be successful, there are so many ways to circumvent.
Reblogged this on IF THE TRUTH BE KNOWN…BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny.G….
First, its a short term problem that will resolve itself once internet is so fast at the lowest end that no one will pay for the higher speeds.
Second, when did limiting choice ever do a good thing for a market?
Where can you buy better beer; in California or in Utah?http://theweek.com/article/index/257606/why-states-should-stop-limiting-the-alcohol-content-in-your-beer
The argument is the same.
“If you like your Internet, You can keep your Internet”
Well, right now Google is the internet, so nothing happens unless Google says so…
He will destroy it. The genie is out of the bottle and any attempt to control it will destroy it. No country is going to kow tow to the tin plated Messiah’s desires. No matter how much his ego tells him they will.
Here’s what is scary – given the history and temperament of this man, he will use the Executive Order to accomplish what he wants! We have someone with the characteristics of a despot and tyrant in charge, who will answer to no one!
MORE TO COME:
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_wants_China_to_do_well_Obama_says_in_announcing_visa_deal_999.html
We will probably be sent to the gulag for being climate change deniers. That is where this is probably headed.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
This could actually be his undoing as the last of his supporters (the under 30 group) are very connected and any perceived restrictions will not be tolerated.