Internet Censorship

The FCC has voted 2-1 to repeal the onerous Obama era rules to control the internet.  Under the false claim that the internet needs to be fair and equal for everyone. The charge that ISP (Internet Service Providers) were throttling the speed and bandwidth of internet access in favor of customers that were willing to pay for the faster service.  That was never true.

“FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants the commission repeal the rules that reclassified internet service providers as if they were utilities. He thinks the open internet rules adopted under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, were unnecessary and harm jobs and investment.”

Essentially, the Obama regime wanted to take control of the internet and make it a public utility.  In effect making the internet like a service controlled by the government. Similar to water, sewer, and electric services, the internet would be controlled by a government panel where access cost and content would be controlled by the government.

However, the internet is a source of innovation and free market development.  That freedom would have been taken away by the government. An innovator would have to meet certain government regulations in order to meet government regulatory approvals. Thus throwing a road-block into developers to improve, develop new technologies, and provide open access to the internet.

The internet is not an essential public utility. People lives would not be irreparably harmed if they didn’t use the internet. The internet is more of a luxury than an essential public service. Electric, water, sewer are essential public services for obvious reasons of health and quality of life.  However, the internet is luxury.

There are people that live off the grid without internet and telephone services, and they survive just fine. My parents couldn’t make heads or tails of the internet, even though they took computer classes at the community college. I remember my father complaining about popup ads and asking why do they do this on the internet. I said it’s like a newspaper, but with ads that popup to get your attention.

People worry that their internet access and costs would be at the mercy of the ISP provider. The beauty of a free market internet is that you are free to choose your ISP provider.  Just like newspapers, you can switch to another publisher, and just like your internet provider, you can switch to another ISP provider.  If you don’t like Comcast, then you can switch to another provider like either Time-Warner, Verizon or some local provider.

Under a “One-Size-Fits-All” net neutrality government run utility, you don’t get a choice in providers. You get what the government approves. The government isn’t effective in controlling commerce, but the government would try to control internet content and that’s a scary thought.

Because Net Neutrality would be government controlled, it also means the government would control the content on the internet.  The internet would be subject to political influences.  The Alt-Left socialists, a.k.a. democrats, want to censor and restrict access to internet content.  Just like when the “Fairness Doctrine” was passed in 1949 to restrict the content on the radio.  Net Neutrality would restrict Free Speech.  The socialist left in America is pushing hard to restrict your First Amendment, and they are not trying to hide it.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission’s view — honest, equitable, and balanced.

Thus the name “Net Neutrality”.  The left claims it would make the internet fair and balanced, but in reality it would restrict the content and censor free speech.  The left is good at creating flowery names to impose socialism on Americans.  President Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and that has brought freedom to the radio airwaves. The explosion of Conservative Talk Radio has become very popular.  Just like freedom of the airwaves, freedom of the internet is essential for the proliferation of free expression.

If you don’t like the opinions, then the solution is simple! You change the channel!  Just like newspapers, if you don’t like the content, then you can find another newspaper.  That is the value of a Free Market Capitalist system. The popularity of Conservative Talk Radio has moved to the internet, and the purpose of Net Neutrality is to restrict content as “honest, equitable, and balanced”. Which is socialist code for censorship of free speech.

Here’s an example: Remember “Air America?” Air America was a leftist radio program organized by socialists personalities to counter the popularity of Conservative Talk Radio. It didn’t last very long. Why? Because of the content. It’s wasn’t entertaining. It was mostly hate speech and it quickly turn people off, and the people switched off Air America.  The free market determined the fate of Air America.  If Net Neutrality were enacted, then the government would fund this content to keep it on the air.  Is that a good use of your tax dollars?

Keep the Internet Free From Big Government

 

 

 

Government: If It Ain’t Broke, We’ll Fix It

netNeutrality

Net Neutrality is the government’s takeover of the internet.  The government says the regulations are needed to make the internet fair.  When was the internet unfair?  This is nothing more than a power grab by the government to tax and add unnecessary fees and regulations to internet providers, who in turn will pass those costs onto the consumer.

The internet is not a utility, and neither should it be treated like a utility.  The liberal progressives and Obama want to regulate the internet like a utility.  What it means for anyone using the internet: Higher Costs!

Have you ever looked closely at your phone bill?  Have you ever wondered what are all those little charges at the end of your bill?

  • Access Recovery Charge
  • Federal Excise Tax
  • Federal Universal Service Fee
  • Intrastate Surcharge
  • Public Service Company Tax
  • PUC Tax
  • Subscriber Line Charge
  • Telecommunications Relay Service

These are just some of the extra fees and taxes that are added to your phone bill.  If your phone company is your internet provider, then these are just some of the utility charges tacked onto your monthly billing.

Currently, the internet is open and free.  So why does the government think that rules need to be applied?  Answer: Control.  Once the government starts making rules as to the accessibility to the internet content, then it will be like an electronic curtain that will descend and restrict access to certain sites.  It’s a pay to play scheme by the government to extort fairness at a cost.  A corporate protection racket that uses government as the muscle.

The government will use the straw-man argument that providers regulate network speeds, but network speeds have been getting faster year after year.  Broadband speeds are faster now, than they were 5 years ago.  The free market has been encouraging innovation and competition by internet service providers (ISP).  Yet, the government makes the argument that network providers are not fair.

That’s where the free market comes into play.  There’s not a lack of service providers, and people who are dissatisfied with their ISP can find another provider.  What it really is corporations trying to protect their monopoly over their competition.  Basically, larger companies trying to block out smaller companies with better ideas.

Obama’s secret, 332-page “Net Neutrality” document is a scheme for federal micro-managing of the Internet to extract billions in new taxes from consumers and again enforce progressives’ idea of honest, equitable, and balanced content fairness.

So why is the document a secret?  It’s because the government wants to regulate all websites and apps to force providers into unfair regulatory burdens based on what the government calls “fairness”.  If you are app developer, then the FCC will put regulations on your intellectual property.  If you run a website for your business, then the FCC will regulate who can access your website based on their regulatory rules.

It essentially means the end of the internet.  This has got to stop.  What the FCC is doing is the same thing as what China does to its people on the internet.  Restricting access to a open and free internet.  It is what Obamacare is to healthcare services.  It just increases the cost of doing business and destroys development innovation.

From the Wall Street Journal:

Under Title II, regulators will have the power to invalidate many Internet practices that deliver enormous value to consumers. Today, Amazon has a deal with Sprint enabling Kindle’s rapid downloads of e-books, which competing e-book sellers could claim was “unjust.” The WhatsApp messaging system acquired by Facebook lets people text for free, which traditional mobile phone companies might well consider “unreasonable.” Netflix will regret lobbying for Title II if its competitors object to its special deals that enable its smooth delivery of bandwidth-intensive video.

Under Title II, almost all Web operations will be subject to bureaucratic control. In 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court warned that if the FCC treated the Internet as a telecommunications service, it “would subject to mandatory common carrier regulation all information service providers that use telecommunications as an input to provide information service to the public”—in other words, almost all websites and apps would be subject to regulation.

This means the FCC will be able to decide the “reasonableness” of many websites and services: Regulators could micromanage Google search results on the ground that the company uses “telecommunications” to link to other sites. The FCC could oversee news publishers that link to other news sites or have online advertisements connecting to advertiser websites. Social media such as Facebook and Twitter involve telecommunication services, as do email services from Google and Yahoo .

Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, hurts innovation and protects corporate monopolies.  The “Fairness Doctrine” forced AM radio stations to provide equal content on the airways.  Content that most people don’t find of any value, but it has to be done out of fairness, and not out of competitiveness.  National Public Radio (NPR), a taxpayer funded radio station, wouldn’t survive in an open market today.  Even though NPR gets a majority of its funding from taxpayer monies, it still has to perform public fund raising.  Begging for more money.

When Ronald Reagan eliminated the Fairness Doctrine regulation, it gave rise to the popular Conservative Talk Radio.  This new medium literally saved AM radio stations, which were diminishing to FM radio.  The popularity of Conservative Talk Radio has been the envy of leftist liberals.  They don’t like Conservative Talk Radio because it doesn’t fit their socialist narrative.  It cannot be controlled for equal content.  Conservative Talk Radio survives because it provides content consumers want.

If leftist liberals had control of the AM airwaves to force equal content, it would be similar to Michelle Obama’s school lunches, where the government will dictate what information you will be fed.  That does not feed Free Thinking with nutritional content.

Competition in the free markets created companies like Apple, Google and Twitter.  These technologies would have never existed using the 1934 regulations.  This innovation will now be regulated by a technology inept government that will be subjected by corporate lobbyists to monopolize their markets.   Companies will either survive, or die, based on what the consumer finds of value.  The government regulations will stifle innovations and new technologies that consumers will find of value will be prohibited from growing.

There would be no Apple today if these regulations were in place.  What the government is doing is going back to the days when AT&T controlled the phone lines and restricted who could plug into their network.  Innovation would revert back to a black corded phones hanging on the wall with a rotary dial.  Because the government will consider this technology protected, and it would be protected by lobbyist buying off politicians to protect their monopoly.

This has Obama and the democrats written all around this.  This government intrusion is neither needed nor wanted.

 

rwbline

 

What’s For Dinner?

2014-12-20 17.29.47

Pan Seared Ahi Tuna over Jasmine Rice and Vegetable Melange

 

 

All Your Posts Are Belong To Us.

The government wants your internet.  They call it “Net Neutrality“.  The FCC is making a move to regulate the Internet.  Let’s take a look at how the government, with all its wisdom, will regulate what we all take for granted.

We are from the Government, and we’re here to help

The most frightening words ever spoken.  Making the Internet a Public Utility make not be the best decision in the Public’s interests.  However, there are those that think the government should regulate everything.  Including the Internet.

Begun, This ISP War Has

Indeed, Comcast has deliberately choked access to the Internet and Cable Broadcasts.  Comcast, has been a monopoly in areas of the country where cable access is the only option to consumers.  Comcast has gouged its customers, forcing their customers to pay more in order for the consumer to get the programming they desire.  Comcast behavior is criminal, and there should be laws to protect consumers from being raked over the economic coals to feed Comcast appetite for money.  This is Greed, that deprives.  This is destroying freedom.  This is corporate Greed that should be prohibited.  This is Greed that limits content to bundles of programming neither wanted nor desired.

Don’t get me wrong, I love greed.  But not at the expense of depriving others freedoms.  There should be no limits to the content, speed and access to any place on the World Wide Web, Torrent Videos, Video Hosting, Websites, File Sharing, or any other free, and unfettered connections to electronic media.  Greed is Good, when it doesn’t deprive.

Does this mean the government should step in and regulate the industry, regulate the Internet.  NO!

That would be the worst possible scenario.  The worst possible, or projected sequence of events, ever to be imagined.  Having the government come in and tell you how your access to the Internet shall be, and what it will cost you.

For example, when we were Comcast customers, we had to pay extra to get access to cable news, movie channels, and in return we got a host of other cable channels that we did not want or cared for.  Comcast’s response, you want the channel, you gatta pay for all the other crap we give you.  Why couldn’t I pick the channels I wanted, À la carte?  I voted with my wallet and went to DishTV, and now I got the content I wanted, and at a price I wanted.

No, the government neither should regulate the Internet, nor should it decide what the content of the Internet should be.  That is for the Free Market to decide.  Companies like Comcast should not be allowed to regulate the content, speed, and access to the Internet either.  The government should encourage the growth of Private companies to compete against companies like Comcast to provide better access to the Internet.  That, is true Net Neutrality.

What’s For Dinner?

REPEAL OBAMACARE

%d bloggers like this: