Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2227
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Robert_McChesney

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soros
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. (Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...t-regulations/

http://StopNetRegulation.org

"Chas. Chan" wrote in message
...

Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project...

No it ****ing isn't.

Jim

On Dec 27, 6:35Â*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:


Dear Sir,
You don't know what you're talking about. Â*The government has no
place 
in preventing ISPs from raping us up the ass in the same way
the cable 
companies do. Â*ISPs should be able to limit the number of
web sights 
we can access to less than 100, 50, or 5 depending on the
package we 
choose. Â*Anybody who thinks there should be a law to
prevent this is a 
Communist. Â*Corporations are our friends and the
government is always 
always evil.
Sincerely, 
I.M. Klueless

On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:
Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...bert_McChesney

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. *In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i...

http://StopNetRegulation.org

k000k a d000dle do

On 12/27/2010 7:21 PM, dave wrote:

...
Don't let Glenn Beck hear you say that. He says "human rights" is a
commie plot.

Funny, he must have read the part, in the Constitution where the
forefathers mention them ...

Regards,
JS

On 12/27/2010 4:35 PM, Chas. Chan wrote:

...
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...t-regulations/

http://StopNetRegulation.org

Seems most don't realize they will soon be licensing you to be able to
have a spot on the internet, perhaps even contract with an ISP.

Seems most don't realize they will soon need a permit/license to travel
.... this is what the TSA is doing in your airports, and soon will be in
you train depots, buses, even Walmarts ...

Seems most don't realize, under the new food and safety bill, you will
soon need to be licensed to grow and sell vegetables from a garden ...

The attack is on many fronts ... and the ignorant masses are asleep. If
they knew what this translates into, they would all be joining state
militias and purchasing weapons ...

Regards,
JS

On Dec 27, 9:46*pm, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:





Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...p?indid=2227ht....

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. *In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i...

http://StopNetRegulation.org

k000k a d000dle do


Timmy has again reached his limits.

On Dec 27, 9:58*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 12/27/2010 4:35 PM, Chas. Chan wrote:

...
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i...

http://StopNetRegulation.org

Seems most don't realize they will soon be licensing you to be able to
have a spot on the internet, perhaps even contract with an ISP.

Seems most don't realize they will soon need a permit/license to travel
... this is what the TSA is doing in your airports, and soon will be in
you train depots, buses, even Walmarts ...

Seems most don't realize, under the new food and safety bill, you will
soon need to be licensed to grow and sell vegetables from a garden ...

The attack is on many fronts ... and the ignorant masses are asleep. *If
they knew what this translates into, they would all be joining state
militias and purchasing weapons ...

Regards,
JS


Resistance to obedience does seem to be on the rise. Civil
disobedience is a better option.

On Dec 27, 9:46*pm, Tim Crowley wrote:
On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:





Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...p?indid=2227ht....

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. *In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i...

http://StopNetRegulation.org

k000k a d000dle do


Timmy has again reached his limits.

On Dec 27, 7:13*pm, Werner wrote:
On Dec 27, 9:46*pm, Tim Crowley wrote:





On Dec 27, 4:35*pm, "Chas. Chan" wrote:

Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding
marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-
called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like

Robert McChesney

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...p?indid=2227ht...

board member of Marxist magazine and the socialist founder of the
misnamed group

Free Press,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7103

which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former
communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius
Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any
time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the
battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the
telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the
ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and
cable companies and to divest them from control."

The FCC’s new rules, ...approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on
December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to
treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are
incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router,
and constantly evolving.

Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine
(not to mention the next great thing that hasn’t been invented yet –
and likely never will be under these regulations) can be handled
intelligently by networks is necessary to make the Internet work, but
every new innovative network practice will now be subject to the
regulatory interference of the FCC.

These networks cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, and if
there is uncertainty about getting a good return on that investment,
private investment will dry up. And then government will step in,
“divest them from control,” and spend billions of our tax dollars on a
government-owned and controlled Internet.

According to media reports, many of the largest Internet service
providers are willing to accept the new regulations, because they
believe the costs of complying are less than the ongoing uncertainty
they have suffered as the issue played out over the past two years.
It’s an understandable assessment, especially in light of the Chicago-
style shakedown tactics the FCC has used, threatening the even more
draconian option of directly reclassifying the Internet as a public
utility, taking a big shortcut down McChesney’s proposed path to
government control.

But there is reason to doubt an FCC that has been so obsessed with
these regulations is likely to restrain itself from applying its newly
created powers in unpredictable, expensive, and dangerous ways.
Indeed we have already seen this Commission igno

1.A near-total lack of support in Congress, where over 300 members
signed letters of opposition to FCC Internet regulation, and just 27
have sponsored Rep. Ed Markey’s bill to impose network neutrality
rules. *The bill has not even been introduced in the Senate.

2.A devastating unanimous decision of the DC circuit court of appeals
in Comcast v. FCC, which eviscerated the Commission’s claims to have
the jurisdiction to regulate the Internet. (We can only hope that
court will similarly reject the latest regulations.)

3.An electoral tidal wave for smaller government, less spending, and
less regulation. *In particular, the election including an
embarrassing display on the network neutrality issue by the
Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which touted a net neutrality
pledge signed by 95 candidates. *ALL 95 LOST.

Progressive Change Campaign Committee is funded directly by George
Soroshttp://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7625

With influencers like

John Podesta,http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1626

who chaired Obama’s transition team, openly calling for Obama to
continue pushing his hard left agenda inside the executive branch, the
FCC’s Internet regulations set up a perfect test-case for Congress to
step in and stand up to the administration. *(Despite FCC being
officially “independent,” there are White House fingerprints all over
this. *Chairman Genachowski is a close friend of the president’s and
one of the most frequent White House visitors.)

Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC’s
network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval
under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority
can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate
floor with 30-senator petition. *It cannot be filibustered and would
need just 51 votes to pass.

Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal
responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic
growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the
free-market, unregulated Internet.

Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard
left inside the executive branch won’t stand. *Congress must do what
the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama’s big
government agenda.

http://BigGovernment.com/pkerpen/201...st-stop-fccs-i....

http://StopNetRegulation.org

k000k a d000dle do

Timmy has again reached his limits.


hint: you're nothing but scum. deal.