posted on Apr, 13 2008 @ 11:41 AM
I received an invitation to sign a petition supporting the Markey-Pickering bill, a bill introduced purportedly to keep the Net neutral. Since I am
of the opinion the efforts to take over the net are efforts by the same faction that brought us 9/11, and because I think that these efforts to take
over the net are really part and parcel with all the other efforts to remove freedom and our Constitution/Bill of Rights, I thought this was a good
place to post this. I signed it, but then read more closely...
I finally wrote the site offering the petition, saying this:
I noticed that you have a petition up to support the Markey-Pickering bill. After
reading what that bill in part says, I am rather concerned about its choice of words.
What you offered was:
"The Markey-Pickering bill requires the FCC to actively protect the free-flowing
Internet from gatekeepers, enforcing protections that "guard against unreasonable
discriminatory favoritism for, or degradation of, content by network operators based
upon its source, ownership, or destination on the Internet.""
Who gets to decide what is "unreasonable" discriminatory favoritism???
How about guarding against ANY discriminatory favoritism! WTF, if you know what
I mean. What is "unreasonable" degradation? Why guard only against issues
based on source, ownership and/or destination? Why not content?
Oh, this is a Trojan Horse if I ever saw one. I signed your petition, but getting
this ill-written thing passed is useless.
Surely there are bright minds there that can see what this is, if lowly me can.
Or maybe they have a clear-cut definition of the "unreasonable" stuff
that the Com companies CAN discriminate against? And that makes sense...? I'm
going to doubt if I read the bill in question that I will find that.
So I want to ask if any others of you see issues with the bill, and if so, what.