FCC, FEC look to ruin the Internet • Tammy Bruce • Ajit Pai

a reply to: greencmp

FCC leadership now trying to block Commissioner Pai's press releases from FCC website. So much for Open Internet!
Why Can't the Public See Obama's Proposed Internet Regulations?

The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it.

a reply to: greencmp

The *IRONY*

a reply to: tothetenthpower

tothetenthpower
I'm sorry, but I can't take anything this article has to say seriously because of the obvious bias. Wow, the Washington Times is a joke now if they allow reporters to write in this way:

Even prior to that massive win for the First Amendment, the left had succeeded at co-opting the legacy media by swamping the staff and reporters with ideological true believers, making newspapers and the broadcast networks nothing more than PR agencies for the leftist agenda

I will agree with tothetenthpower that the journalist in question doesn't know what he's writing about. The First Amendment wasn't designed to reinforce the left, it was to protect the right from purple radicals trying to establish a mime-reich. Without the 1st amendment leftists would rule silently and animalistically. America was founded on rightist non-monarchist idealogy and the constitution acknowledges that power of the individual.

Also, to blindly believe all people know what is politically happening in our country at any time or that everyone gives a $h!7 what politicians have to say would be a gross inaccuracy. So if you accuse someone of political dissent you better re-check your sources and make sure they even know anything about politics first. It's a matter of who knows what and how it is done.

a reply to: xuenchen

It takes a mighty big man to admit when he's wrong. He just has to see it first.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Over 300 pgs of regulations by the FCC and no one is allow to see it in congress. Looks like another bait and switch on the American people.

The corporations want more money. The government wants more government. I would rather pay more and have less government in the short term. In the long term, the internet will get better and cheaper if the government is kept out.

a reply to: amfirst1

And it is not even the same one that Wheeler proposed last year.

But Wheeler, early last year, had originally proposed net neutrality rules that did not reclassify broadband under Title II. "It is very clear that outside political influences determined the trajectory of where the FCC is going," Pai said. "It is only now after we've received this 332-page document that it becomes clear that the president's plan to regulate the Internet is going to be the FCC's plan."

FCC member knocks net neutrality plan, warns of stealthy regulations

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: amfirst1

And it is not even the same one that Wheeler proposed last year.

But Wheeler, early last year, had originally proposed net neutrality rules that did not reclassify broadband under Title II. "It is very clear that outside political influences determined the trajectory of where the FCC is going," Pai said. "It is only now after we've received this 332-page document that it becomes clear that the president's plan to regulate the Internet is going to be the FCC's plan."

FCC member knocks net neutrality plan, warns of stealthy regulations

It's a good thing that this isn't the plan proposed last year. The public that read the previous plan was VERY against it. The current plan is a result of government actually listening to the people. Imagine that, novel concept isn't it?

a reply to: Aazadan

You make it sound as if you have read the bill. Would you grace us by telling us what is in it?

I am all ears.

a reply to: greencmp

I haven't read it. It sure as hell shouldn't take 300 pages to simply reclassify broadband networks under title 2. That should take 2 pages at the most. I'm sure there's some stuff in it that I don't approve of, but it's still better than the alternative of what Verizon is fighting for.

a reply to: Aazadan

If you are not a fan of allowing over 300 pages of unknown law to be introduced, why pass it?

I am not suggesting that we agree to pass the version that Verizon wants, I am saying that we should not pass anything and/or only remove existing bad law (if Verizon has already put the fix in via lobbyists as has been suggested before).

a reply to: greencmp

Because the current pattern of legislation being far longer than it should be, and far less transparent than it should be isn't a reason to stop passing it. We can't stop the government from functioning because it's not ideal. The current legislation issue is part of a much larger problem and this isn't the spot to draw a line in the sand and address it.

a reply to: Aazadan

The position which you are representing is not supportable.

We should not have 'faith' that government will do what is in our best interests.

We should be confident, rather, that it will not.

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

The position which you are representing is not supportable.

We should not have 'faith' that government will do what is in our best interests.

We should be confident, rather, that it will not.

And that position is politically impossible in the current climate. Such a thing requires many other changes, and starting those changes over an FCC power grab isn't the place to do it as those are appointees rather than elected officials and thus aren't accountable to the voters.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: Aazadan

The position which you are representing is not supportable.

We should not have 'faith' that government will do what is in our best interests.

We should be confident, rather, that it will not.

And that position is politically impossible in the current climate. Such a thing requires many other changes, and starting those changes over an FCC power grab isn't the place to do it as those are appointees rather than elected officials and thus aren't accountable to the voters.

So, it is politically impossible to prevent ever increasing government overreach.

Indeed, I get the impression that you consider me a fool for even wanting to try to limit the expansion of the police and regulatory state.

Nullification is a potential option against excessive and onerous regulations.

Any jury can nullify a law, to the best of my non-lawyer understanding. Nullification by a jury means that guilty, or not, there is no punishment.

In the movie Freedom to Fascism, one of the sequences is about an income tax protester who is not sentenced because the jury found him not guilty by nullification, that is, the jury found that the income tax was not Constitutional.

In a practical sense, nullification is a subset of non-violent, passive resistance.

originally posted by: greencmp
So, it is politically impossible to prevent ever increasing government overreach.

Indeed, I get the impression that you consider me a fool for even wanting to try to limit the expansion of the police and regulatory state.

I don't think you a fool but I think you're picking the wrong spot to make an ideological stand. Appointee's aren't accountable to you, and in this case the alternative to opposing them has disastrous results.

If you want to prevent government overreach, start with the elected officials. For that matter both the R's and the D's want overreach so you need to look third party... perhaps Libertarian?

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
So, it is politically impossible to prevent ever increasing government overreach.

Indeed, I get the impression that you consider me a fool for even wanting to try to limit the expansion of the police and regulatory state.

I don't think you a fool but I think you're picking the wrong spot to make an ideological stand. Appointee's aren't accountable to you, and in this case the alternative to opposing them has disastrous results.

If you want to prevent government overreach, start with the elected officials. For that matter both the R's and the D's want overreach so you need to look third party... perhaps Libertarian?

As far as I know, this has nothing to do with appointments or appointees.

I do recognize that I cannot trust either the Republican or the Democratic party.

I simply make the case that government itself must be kept to heel. This legislation is bad and will do us no good.

I am a libertarian.

originally posted by: greencmp
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with appointments or appointees.

I do recognize that I cannot trust either the Republican or the Democratic party.

I simply make the case that government itself must be kept to heel. This legislation is bad and will do us no good.

I am a libertarian.

The legislation is good. Maybe not all 300 pages are good, we honestly can't say (though we can assume they aren't) but most of it is. In a world where any legislation is always several hundred pages long you can't stop things on the basis of what little bad they may contain and instead have to look at the mostly good aspects.

Besides that, we're talking about government control or huge corporate control here. We at least have indirect control over our government, we have no such control over a monopoly corporation. The correct path here is that which leaves the power in the hands of the people, and that path is the FCC's proposal.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: greencmp
As far as I know, this has nothing to do with appointments or appointees.

I do recognize that I cannot trust either the Republican or the Democratic party.

I simply make the case that government itself must be kept to heel. This legislation is bad and will do us no good.

I am a libertarian.

The legislation is good. Maybe not all 300 pages are good, we honestly can't say (though we can assume they aren't) but most of it is. In a world where any legislation is always several hundred pages long you can't stop things on the basis of what little bad they may contain and instead have to look at the mostly good aspects.

Besides that, we're talking about government control or huge corporate control here. We at least have indirect control over our government, we have no such control over a monopoly corporation. The correct path here is that which leaves the power in the hands of the people, and that path is the FCC's proposal.

We really do not know that this is good because we really can't read it.

If you don't want bad laws which grant unwarranted monopolistic powers to corporations, you should not be advocating for an unknown bill which most likely will do just that.