#334977
Here is a article I came across on the internet, For me the bottom paragraph speaks volume.

Don't Tread On the Internet

Radio came of age in the 1930s. While listeners devoured dramas of the Lone Ranger rescuing damsels in distress, they also hoped happy days would come again when they heard President Franklin Roosevelt’s radio fireside chats. Meanwhile an Iowan named Ronald Reagan was enchanted by the magical sounds of radio. After college graduation, he jumped at the chance to take the latest new-media job: a sportscaster on radio.

TV’s magic was just as captivating. By the 1960s, most everyone had a boxy television set in their livings rooms and ugly antennas on their rooftops. Though FDR was the first president to appear on TV when it was a futuristic novelty, John F. Kennedy was the first to leverage it to his advantage.

But unlike the Internet in 2010, Americans delighted in the content of early radio and TV without participating in it.

Today, average Americans aren't just consuming Internet content, they’re creating it. That's why the FCC's recent regulation or “network neutrality” of the Internet is a slippery slope, setting a concerning precedent that goes beyond the licensing of radio and TV stations of the past. It has the potential to strike at the individual free-flowing nature of the Internet by allowing service providers to put a price on content.

What makes the Internet distinctly different from its radio and TV predecessors is its interactivity and direct impact on individual liberty. No other media has allowed Americans so many choices and different ways to speak freely and exercise their rights to freedom of speech and press—and to do so cheaply.

Though Americans consumed the news and dramas they heard on the radio and TV of yesteryear, they didn't participate in it like they do on the Internet. Back then the primary way to control the content of radio or TV was to turn the channel—off, on or over to the next station. It didn’t cost you a dime to do so. Not only can you click away to another Internet site, you can also create words and pictures and post them yourself.

Masses of Americans could watch TV in the 1960s but individuals could not create a public video as they can on YouTube today. Sure they could write letters to their local newspaper editor in 1960. But you and I can voice our opinions instantly and publically about any news story that irks or excites us through blogs and comment features, such as those on Fox News Opinion and others.

The FCC was originally created to regulate radio licenses, which directly impacted broadcast companies and stations. The effect on individuals was intangible and indirect. When the FCC regulated how frequently a radio news broadcasting company like CBS could break-in to regular programming on a local affiliate, the impact on the average American was a matter of timing: hearing national news at 5 PM instead of earlier in the day interrupting a soap opera. The cost to the listener didn’t change. Because of commercial sponsors, the content was still “free.”

Giving service providers the option of putting prices on the types of content users view may restrict the medium’s greatest advantage: its free-flowing river of ideas and reservoir of information at a cheap cost. By allowing providers to price which content you access, the FCC might eventually be able to put a price on what you post, too, which could lead to censorship.

A young Philadelphia entrepreneur working in the new-media of 1722—the printing press—wrote: “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as public liberty, without freedom of speech.” Benjamin Franklin was right then, and he is right today.

Americans deserve to keep the Internet as it was intended. The less the federal government intrudes on the Internet today, the more individual liberty flows freely down the road of tomorrow.
#334978
I am in the process of trying to connect the dots. From what I have been able to obtain and in my opinion from researching the matter is that one of the biggest promoters of net neutrality has been a nice fellow by the name of Robert McChesney. He is the co-founder of a media reform organization called 'free press. He worked with Obama during the campaign to develop the candidates high tech policies. During the campaign Obama promised not take a back seat to anyone on net neutrality. McChesney also teaches impressionable young minds at the University of Illinois as a (Urbano Campaign) research professor.He was a former writer and editor for the 'Monthly Review'. I would ask everyone to do their own research on the guy. From what I can tell is that this guy seems to want revolution. He did meet several times over the last year with Obama's F.C.C Chairman Julius Genachowski to discuss net neutrality.It is his close relationship with the President that makes me suspect..

In a lengthy article in the monthly review in 2000 titled 'Journalism ,democracy and class struggle ' he wrote ''our job is to make media reform part of a broader struggle for democracy ,social justice, and dare we say socialism. It is impossible to conceive of a better world with a media system that remains under the thumb of Wall Street, Madison Avenue, under the thumb of the owning class. It is nearly impossible to conceive of the process of getting to a better world without some changes in the media status quo .We have no time to waste.''

''In another lengthy article in September 2008 of the Monthly Review titled 'The U.S. Media Reform movement Going forward' McChesney wrote ''No one thinks any longer that media reform is an issue to solve after the revolution'' .There is must reading on this guy.

It appears that Free Press is not happy with the decision of the F C C. In a press release Free Press managing director Graig Aaron stated ''We are deeply disappointed that the chairman chose to ignore the overwhelming public support for real net neutrality, instead moving forward with industry-written rules that will for the first time in Internet history allow discrimination on line''.. They went on to say'' the rules are riddled with loopholes'' and the chairman ''ignored President' Obama's promise to the American people to take a back seat to no one on net neutrality''.

I still believe and am researching the very likely possibility of the government is hiding behind net neutrality to control Internet content.
#334979
I believe the destruction of Net Neutrality is about the second issue Phaedrus mentioned - it is all about connectivity providers who want to further monetize their services (at the expense of content providers, and ultimately their customers) and who want to expand their service offerings into the content arena (again, at the expense of content providers), using the monopoly power of their networks to give them advantages in the marketplace. The only way I can see the destruction of NN on its own helping government throttle the internet is that substantial consolidation of content providers delivered via a shrinking pool of increasingly large connectivity providers gives the government fewer choke points to attack if they want to clamp down on things. It's not a direct link, though - thin at best.
#334980
Boro Friend wrote:It appears that Free Press is not happy with the decision of the F C C. In a press release Free Press managing director Graig Aaron stated ''We are deeply disappointed that the chairman chose to ignore the overwhelming public support for real net neutrality, instead moving forward with industry-written rules that will for the first time in Internet history allow discrimination on line''.. They went on to say'' the rules are riddled with loopholes'' and the chairman ''ignored President' Obama's promise to the American people to take a back seat to no one on net neutrality''.

I still believe and am researching the very likely possibility of the government is hiding behind net neutrality to control Internet content.


If it is true that there is a government takeover, how do you explain what I have highlighted in green?
#334981
breitak67 wrote:I believe the destruction of Net Neutrality is about the second issue Phaedrus mentioned - it is all about connectivity providers who want to further monetize their services (at the expense of content providers, and ultimately their customers) and who want to expand their service offerings into the content arena (again, at the expense of content providers), using the monopoly power of their networks to give them advantages in the marketplace. The only way I can see the destruction of NN on its own helping government throttle the internet is that substantial consolidation of content providers delivered via a shrinking pool of increasingly large connectivity providers gives the government fewer choke points to attack if they want to clamp down on things. It's not a direct link, though - thin at best.


Beyond the over-heated conspiracy theories, there is a pragmatic issue missing in our debate and that is the real problem of limited bandwith. This is a looming problem. It is particularly acute with wireless which is why the new regulations leave open the ability of connectivity providers to manage this service. It's starting to look increasingly like a good old-fashioned road or electric service problem. Who builds the roads and where do they go? That's an important question in economic development. A major problem for Norristown was that it was built for river and rail traffic, but the highways passed it by.
#334982
Phaedrus wrote:
Boro Friend wrote:It appears that Free Press is not happy with the decision of the F C C. In a press release Free Press managing director Graig Aaron stated ''We are deeply disappointed that the chairman chose to ignore the overwhelming public support for real net neutrality, instead moving forward with industry-written rules that will for the first time in Internet history allow discrimination on line''.. They went on to say'' the rules are riddled with loopholes'' and the chairman ''ignored President' Obama's promise to the American people to take a back seat to no one on net neutrality''.

I still believe and am researching the very likely possibility of the government is hiding behind net neutrality to control Internet content.


If it is true that there is a government takeover, how do you explain what I have highlighted in green?


It does appear that they didn't get what they wanted coming out of the gate. But from what I can tell progressives are very patient. I will be interested to see where the cracked egg goes from here. Some of the incoming congressman will also be taking up the subject. .Free Press and company probably won't like where things go from there . I am sure we have not heard the end of this.
#334984
Phaedrus wrote:I think you were attempting to link their opinions with potential action by Obama. This FCC decision makes it clear that Obama is finding a middle path that takes into account competing voices.


Just linking the dots together.Progressives take baby steps to get where they want to be. The new problem for progressives is the cover is blown and that tide will not go back to a hidden state of conducting business.