Thursday, December 02, 2010

Socialist Regime Moves For Control of The Internet

Socialist Regime Moves For Control of The Internet
FCC will take first steps to control the Internet
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

It’s called “Net Neutrality.” Sounds fair, right? I mean -- that’s what the liberal-socialist democrats are all about, right? Fairness is their utmost priority, right? Why, they’d never do anything to limit the freedom of Americans … riiiiight?

If you believe all that, then prepare yourself for a rude awakening.

When a political movement intends to takeover a nation’s government, one of the very first things it absolutely MUST DO … is take control of that nation’s communications networks. It must be able to control access to communications if it expects its efforts to be successful.

I began warning readers that the Obama Regime would make an effort to take over the Internet from the early days of the Obama reign. It was as plain as the nose on my face that to make the fundamental change in America that Obama swore he would make, then he would have to gain control of the nations communications. There have been very few successful revolutions in modern history in which the broadcasting stations, networks, and newspapers were not first compromised, or taken over completely by the revolutionaries -- or just shut down.

The Internet is a “thorn in the flesh” of the liberal-socialists in the current American government. It gives them NIGHTMARES!

Conservative bloggers have been the cause of great consternation in the White House and the West Wing and even to those liberal-socialist senators and congresspersons on The Hill. They have been seething with anger at the ability of conservatives to get disseminate their message of Obama’s shadow government and his sub-rosa strategy to convert America to a European style socialist state, not only to Americans, but around the globe -- at the click of a mouse.

Their embarrassment when confronted by fellow socialist leaders in countries they favor, such as Venezuela and Cuba, is overwhelming. And they can bear it no longer!

So, they have decided they must make the initial step to grab control of the Internet and bring it to heel as a servant of the socialist regime of Obama.

Never mind that the courts have already told them the Federal Communications Commission has no authority to regulate the Internet. They are going to do it anyway. This is typical of the socialist Obama Regime. They have been ruling against the will of the American people since day one.

The National Journal reports, in an article by David Hatch and Eliza Krigman, the following: “The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission unveiled a new initiative today he said would preserve the openness of the Internet but that critics attacked on two fronts, with watchdog groups saying it watered down the Web's egalitarian roots and conservatives saying it opened the door to excessive regulation.”

The report goes on to say: “The proposal split the agency along party lines, with the five-member commission’s two GOP members quickly condemning it and setting the stage for a partisan vote that could draw a backlash next year from the GOP-controlled House.

“I strongly oppose this ill-advised maneuver. Such rules would upend three decades of bipartisan and international consensus that the Internet is best able to thrive in the absence of regulation,” wrote Robert McDowell, the FCC’s senior Republican.

GOP member Meredith Attwell Baker warned: “We do not have authority to act. The new majority of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce has asked the commission not to circulate this order, and a clear majority of all members of Congress has expressed concern with our Internet policies. Whether the Internet should be regulated is a decision best left to the directly elected representatives.”

The report continues: “The fight over “network neutrality” has been brewing for years and has divided much of the telecom industry and Congress, with many conservative Democrats joining Republicans in opposition. While the topic may seem technical and obscure, it boils down to a question of whether the Internet remains an open platform in which every website is on equal footing, or whether fast lanes are established that grant priority treatment to websites and online services willing to pay for such privileges.” (You may read the entire article (HERE).)

I am convinced this is the “foot in the door” for which the Obama Regime has been searching.
But it is all about “fairness” ... right? Allow me to ask this: How are conservative bloggers going to feel when they are ORDERED by the FCC to place links to opposing viewpoints, espoused by some left-wing socialist, on their blogs? Oh, its coming if the new Congress doesn’t bring the FCC to heel … and fast!

We suggest the US House of Representatives shut off all funding to the FCC until they back off their socialist scheme to control this nation’s communications via the Internet. Plus, we ask for a bill to be introduced in the House to make it unlawful for the FCC, the FTC, or any other government agency, to regulate the Internet.

It is time to speak up for freedom of speech, once again. It is time to defend the Internet from those who intend to take it over and, ultimately use it to champion socialist, left wing causes and spread their liberal-socialist venom into practically every home in America.

As in every war victory comes by winning one battle at a time. Do not deceive yourself. We are at war for the freedom of Americans. One of our most effective weapons is the Internet. We cannot allow it to be taken from us. I am convinced that is exactly what the FCC, under the Obama Regime, intends to do.

To the barricades! The war continues!

J. D. Longstreet

1 comment:

jamousse at gmail dot com said...

Wow, your understanding of this subject, and of liberal intentions in general, is severely unhinged.

It is not the intent of liberals to exert control over the internet through policies favorable toward government regulation to limit dissent. (It is more closely the opposite; to ensure people can use the internet without their ISP slowing down their Internet if the person is, say, shopping around the web to find another ISP to switch to.)

There is the liberal perspective and intent to this regulation, which you may or may not agree with. But your conservative perspective on this is completely fabricated. As convinced as you are that liberals want to attack or control or limit your freedoms, us liberals are convinced that you conservatives are trying to do the same, that WE are the defenders of freedom, free speech in particular (we'll see if this comment of mine is deleted or not, and we'll know who is correct; speaking of who's afraid of politically contrary blog postings. Oh the irony.)

There are conservative-perspective contentions to this issue which are still contrary, but not so entirely false, which and so would be better suited for you to rail about:

You could say that this is an effort to regulate the market, though that's not how we liberals would put it.

The issue is that consumers and internet service providers are at odds, and this policy would work to ensure that an internet service provider cannot limit or prioritize some data packets over others. (This is the part that is opposite to your contention.)

The problem is that ISPs, such as Comcast, want to de-prioritize certain packets, such as Netflix streaming services to Netflix subscribers, or from people who download movies and CDs illegally over Bit-torrent.

The former would be because Comcast also provides a streaming TV service, and Comcast is a provider of subscription cable TV. (Comcast may also want to de-prioritize telephony services such as Skype, since Comcast offers telephone service as well.) These are competitors to services that Comcast offers, and they wouldn't want you to have the best network access possible when you are watching streaming television, or using VOIP, on their network.

The latter would be because Bittorrent consumes as much bandwidth as is available, causing subscribers to use their entire allotted bandwidth 100% of the time they are online, to do something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

The majority of an ISPs data throughput is used by subscribers using Bittorrent, or streaming media. This requires the ISP to lower their SLAs with customers in general because they cant promise the high speeds they want to promise to new customers if existing customers are using 100% of the available pipe 100% of the time...
Both of which in this case are additionally contrary to the ISPs competitive business interests.

So, the conservative perspective on this would be to let the ISPs limit Internet traffic to suit their business priorities, and let the market work itself out, i.e.: allow customers to switch providers if they don't like it, creating market opportunity for ISP competitors to offer less restrictive services which may be more appealing to consumers.

While the liberal perspective is to regulate the providers, banning them from being anything other than agnostic towards the type of data traffic they handle, even if the data traffic is used by an Internet service subscriber to talk long distance without having to pay for phone service from the ISP, or to watch TV without having to pay for $40 a month cable television service.

I assure you, there is no liberal conspiracy to control the Internet. I've been a liberal all my life, I subscribe to the newsletters, I go to the meetings, I have the t-shirt, etc.

I'm not convinced that you conservatives aren't trying to surreptitiously control American freedoms, but whichever of us is correct about that, this issue of Internet packet neutrality is unrelated.

(jamousse at gmail)