Censorship by the LIBERAL Democratic phonies

[ironsides]

Censorship by the LIBERAL Democratic phonies may be coming. Canada cannot be to far behind.
FCC may regulate Internet lines days before Christmas


By Sara Jerome - 11/19/10 04:50 PM ET
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has a Christmas gift in store for the phone and cable industry: it may move ahead on its controversial net-neutrality regulations three days before Christmas.

An FCC source confirmed on Friday that the commission plans to push its December meeting back by a week, meaning it will fall on the 22nd of the month. That's the same meeting in which analysts say the agency may move forward on its controversial net-neutrality proposal.


Though the FCC has not confirmed that it will vote on net neutrality this year, rumors are swirling that it will.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/130197-fcc-may-regulate-internet-lines-days-before-christmas

 

[Unforgiven]

Excellent I hope that Canada does follow suit and quickly.

 

[Kreskin]

God help us if it doesn't stay unneutral.

 

[Tonington]

God help us if it doesn't stay unneutral.

One shudders to think of the horrors that will be unleashed. I read on the internet that the fabric between space and time will rip in two, and all manner of dark things will escape. True story.

 

[Bar Sinister]

Forgive me if I have misinterpreted the legislation, but it looks to me as if the Net Neutrality law is about making sure no one can regulate the internet rather than the other way around. I am not sure what the fuss is about other than large corporations wishing to control consumer applications on the internet.

 

[Cliffy]

"Democrats on Capitol Hill may come to the commission's defense, however, as the policy has various supporters in the House. Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) said in a statement on Friday that he wants the agency to act this year.

"Preservation of a free and open Internet is essential to protect consumers, spur investment, foster innovation and promote the free flow of ideas," he said.
An FCC official also remained steadfast on Friday that net-neutrality rules are a sound policy.
"Net Neutrality is about preventing anyone from regulating the Internet. There are some cable and phone companies out there that want to decide which apps you should get on your phone, which Internet sites you should look at, and what online videos you can download. That’s regulating the Internet -- and that’s what the FCC is trying to stop,” the official said."

The policy would prevent censorship and corporate control of the internet.WTF are you ranting about ironsides? Sounds like another Republican BS attempt at demonizing the president and the Dems with disinformation. Man, something is rotten in Washington and it smells like elephant shyte.

 

[ironsides]

This has nothing to do with demonizing the President, more like the President trying to demonize the people, this legislation was being worked on for years. It started with Democrats trying to prevent right wing talk radio shows. For some reason Right wing programs do so much better than Left wing ones in drawing in show sponsors. So to make things even (according to Democrats) if you say something about something or someone that person or statement gets to be rebutted on the show making the statement. Basically they are trying to kill talk radio as we know it today. This whole thing is a violation of the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

[Cliffy]

"Preservation of a free and open Internet is essential to protect consumers, spur investment, foster innovation and promote the free flow of ideas,"

What the hell has this got to do with talk radio? Are there any March Hares in that hat?

 

[Unforgiven]

If only the Interwebs were "fair and balanced", the right wing would be... dare I say it, less grumpity. :laughing6:

 

[ironsides]

"Preservation of a free and open Internet is essential to protect consumers, spur investment, foster innovation and promote the free flow of ideas,"

What the hell has this got to do with talk radio? Are there any March Hares in that hat?

Do you actually think that TV and radio will be exempt, there is where all this started a couple of years ago then went quiet till now. It is included in the bill.. Yes there are March Hares in the hat..

 

[Kreskin]

Anyone have a link to the bill?

 

[taxslave]

Not sure I understand all this. The internet is world wide so what does a law in the US have to do with anything? I know that lots of rightwing Americans think that their laws apply to the whole world but that only applies if they can enforce it. Then again if the theocracy that runs under the guise of the Republican party want to live in isolation from the world like Korea and much of the middle east,who cares?

 

[Cliffy]

Do you actually think that TV and radio will be exempt, there is where all this started a couple of years ago then went quiet till now. It is included in the bill.. Yes there are March Hares in the hat..

Well they are not mentioned in the article. And are they to be regulated to be "free and open" like the internet? I still don't see why you have your panties in a knot. A link to the bill would be nice.

 

[Tonington]

Not sure I understand all this. The internet is world wide so what does a law in the US have to do with anything?

American telecommunication companies are already restricts internet users from accessing certain content, and platforms.This bill would make it illegal for companies to do. For some reason the Republicans have a problem with this.

 

[ironsides]

American telecommunication companies are already restricts internet users from accessing certain content, and platforms.This bill would make it illegal for companies to do. For some reason the Republicans have a problem with this.

You would prefer these regulations be goverment approved as well as what individual providers now censor? That is all we need is for politicians to get in on the act also. Someday it could be the Christian right, next time the ultra left. Wouldn't we have fun with that? :roll:


Better just leave the FCC out of all communication mediums.

Not sure I understand all this. The internet is world wide so what does a law in the US have to do with anything? I know that lots of rightwing Americans think that their laws apply to the whole world but that only applies if they can enforce it. Then again if the theocracy that runs under the guise of the Republican party want to live in isolation from the world like Korea and much of the middle east,who cares?

A lot of world wide internet service goes thru the U.S., you want them looking and deciding what is proper or not. By the way this is a Democratic idea.

 

[Tonington]

You would prefer these regulations be goverment approved as well as what individual providers now censor?

No, I would prefer if internet providers do not decide what content I can and cannot access. They already are doing that, so the governments are looking into the so-called net neutrality policies. It has nothing to do with government approved.

Seriously, answer this question:

Do you believe that ISP's should be allowed to hinder the delivery of lawful content?

The law will prohibit wireless carriers from blocking websites and will prevent phone/cable groups from "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against legitimate internet traffic.

You make it sound like they are targeting right wing content, which is absurd. That might be a result of where you are reading your news from...

WHAT YOU ARE FEARFUL OF IS WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ARBITER OF LEGITIMATE CONTENT...THEY ARE ENACTING LAWS TO STOP COMPANIES FROM DOING JUST THAT.

 

[taxslave]

No, I would prefer if internet providers do not decide what content I can and cannot access. They already are doing that, so the governments are looking into the so-called net neutrality policies. It has nothing to do with government approved.

Seriously, answer this question:

Do you believe that ISP's should be allowed to hinder the delivery of lawful content?

The law will prohibit wireless carriers from blocking websites and will prevent phone/cable groups from "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against legitimate internet traffic.

You make it sound like they are targeting right wing content, which is absurd. That might be a result of where you are reading your news from...

WHAT YOU ARE FEARFUL OF IS WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ARBITER OF LEGITIMATE CONTENT...THEY ARE ENACTING LAWS TO STOP COMPANIES FROM DOING JUST THAT.

So this new law would make censorship of legal sites illegal, right?
I don't see any problems there except who gets to decide which are not legal sites? Hopefully not politicians. No telling what the theocrats in the Republican party might decide is illegal. Be like trying to use the internet in Korea.

 

[Tonington]

Well, presumably if the company wanted to impede traffic, they'd have to show cause. If the government did start subjectively applying the letter of the law, it wouldn't be long before a Supreme Court challenge would arise.

 

[ironsides]

No, I would prefer if internet providers do not decide what content I can and cannot access. They already are doing that, so the governments are looking into the so-called net neutrality policies. It has nothing to do with government approved.

Seriously, answer this question:

Do you believe that ISP's should be allowed to hinder the delivery of lawful content?

The law will prohibit wireless carriers from blocking websites and will prevent phone/cable groups from "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against legitimate internet traffic.

You make it sound like they are targeting right wing content, which is absurd. That might be a result of where you are reading your news from...

WHAT YOU ARE FEARFUL OF IS WHAT IS ALREADY HAPPENING. THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ARBITER OF LEGITIMATE CONTENT...THEY ARE ENACTING LAWS TO STOP COMPANIES FROM DOING JUST THAT.

As for hindering right wing content, that is just the target of the moment. Once the law is approved (which I don't think it will) it could target anything they want. I know companies do it, but as I mentioned before I want the goverment to stop interfering with our lives. What laws we now have are more than enough, we don't need a blanket law.

 

[Tonington]

As for hindering right wing content, that is just the target of the moment. Once the law is approved (which I don't think it will) it could target anything they want. I know companies do it, but as I mentioned before I want the goverment to stop interfering with our lives. What laws we now have are more than enough, we don't need a blanket law.

Yes, you do need those blanket laws. That is what the regulator is supposed to do in a market economy. Suppose Comcast does end up purchasing NBC Universal. If there are no laws stating that impeding traffic is illegal, there would be nothing to stop Comcast from throttling back other competing sources of online video. It's an unfair market when a company can do that, and free markets depend on such cases being prevented. That is the role of a regulator in a free market, to define the bounds.