How many people support the administration taking over the internet. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Let them silence dissidents Hooray!!
Conform to the ideology or else.
As the sheeple lay prone at the feet of the great deceiver.
I'm not aware of any plans to take over the Internet. Comcast will beat anybody else to it thanks to the most unfortunate Supreme Court decision last week which will allow the company to assign priorities to its Internet traffic rather than first come first served which has been the guiding principle heretofore.
Ralph, we can balance the federal budget if IRS can collect a dollar every time a wingnut posts something on a false premise.
if the government can regulate the internet through things such as "net neutrality" and Obama is now able to announce "internet emergencies" and take over certain aspects of the net,...
... then complete control isn't that far off.
They already do in many arenas.
They bring the innocent, and the bold, to his feet like trophies of battle.
He just smiles and wags his tail and carries on their agenda!
And many ways, the tail wags the dog. It's a match made in hell.
I would just like to see some people support this. It is obvious that the govt should control everything. We should all trust the govt since they are so efficient and fair. We should put all aspects of our lives in their compassionate and capable hands.
All hail the united states corporation that grants us our rights....
One need only look at the force behind this push for the eloquently named issue of "net neutrality" to know that it's wrong! The issue would put control of access to the Internet in the hands of government as our Free Press avowed communist friend Robert Mcchesney advocates. If the FCC does take over as a gate keeper, you will see investment in broadband come to a screeching halt.
Just 27% of Americans now believe the Federal Communications Commission should regulate the Internet like it does television and radio. That marks a 22-point drop in support for federal regulation of the Internet since June 2008.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … e_internet
That makes 73% of Americans fools. Allowing Comcast and others to control the internet would be like allowing corporations to control the public libraries. Just imagine the sales opportunities if you can block certain kinds of content...
Anyone can purchase the equipment to open a gateway to the Internet and sell access to it, and that's how it should be. Why should Com cast make that investment and have it taken away so that the government can control it? It's not at all like allowing corporations to control the libraries. It's more like the government taking over Microsoft to ensure everyone has access to their operating system.
How many service providers are there where you live? Where I live there's only one.
Wow. You really don't understand the problem.
This goes way beyond what a sole provider can offer it's customers. There's nothing to prevent censorship, blocking competing ads, gouging customers for services, or even refusing to allow data to flow to/from a competing provider's servers.
It's a bit like water rights wars. If someone upstream decides to shut off water all of those downstream would suffer. This hasn't happened yet, but what if some one upstream decided to add something to the water to make sure you knew where the water came from. Even if that water came from somewhere else before the "marker" provider tainted it.
This has already happened in a way. A company was putting advertising "wrappers" around all email messages that passed through their servers. It lasted for about a month until customers and "victims" alike raised heck about it and they stopped.
But there's no law that says any one can't do that again in a slightly different way.
No one company or organization has the majority of the network servers that make up the internet, but that doesn't prevent any one of them from using their small portion of it to hold everyone else hostage.
Finally, if you don't think it can't happen look at China. There are more internet users in China than there are people living in the United States. Every last one of those users can have their messages monitored, redacted, and dissenting opinions blocked.
I agree the internet is a terrible place and should be completely controlled by our benevolent govt. Just look at how miserable we are now.
Only the corporation of the united states has the power to keep us safe. Its not like history has shown what will happen when govt controls media, education and information. Nothing to fear!
Not from our govt, as they are the wisest and most compassionate entity.
The question in the poll was: should the FCC regulate the Internet like it does TV and radio.
To be more accurate, the question should have been: should your internet service provider have the ability to slow, block or otherwise hinder your access to certain content online?
You guys are afraid of government censorship when what you need to be afraid of is corporate censorship. Corporations have a much greater incentive to control what you see than our government does.
Back to the bookstore analogy.
All books should be treated equally. Books are also content so it only makes sense that govt regulates bookstores to make sure that all content is treated the same.
Who cares if the bookstores are privately owned. The govt is the only law of the land to know what is fair.
Maybe the powers of the court should just be handed over to the executive branch. That would make things easier.
The bookstore is not a good analogy, because most internet service providers have some monopoly in their area. I have only 2 corporations I can go to if I want fast access to the internet: AT&T and Comcast (I forgot about AT&T in my earlier post. They offer DSL).
However, if I want a book, I can go to Borders. If they don't have it, I can go to Barnes and Noble. If they don't have it, I can order it from them or go to 5 other locally owned bookstores in my town. If none of them have it, I can look at Amazon.com or Ebay. And if none of that works, I can go to my communist public library, and if they don't have the book they can borrow it from another library.
Bookstores are run for profit, the library is run for the public good. Bookstores have every right to make their own decisions about what books to carry based on profitability - but they don't have the right to deny me certain books.
The internet, on the other hand, is a medium of information transmission. You see what I'm getting at? There really is no analogy to the value that the internet offers, and the importance of keeping it free. You can't stop people from publishing books and finding ways to distribute them. But if you control all internet access in a large region, you can very easily control certain kinds of information - just like China does.
You do not think it is right for China to control the internet but it is OK for the US govt?
The FCC doesn't want to control the internet. They want to regulate corporate control of the internet, just like they used to do with television and radio stations.
For example, there are rules that forbid corporations from owning more than a certain share of the local media market. So one corporation couldn't own more than one television station, for example, or a television station and more than one radio station, etc. See here:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp? … kLNK1MQIwG
I mean, would you really want a single corporation to own all of your local radio and television stations? Because that would be the practical effect of granting corps. like Comcast the ability to control what you see online.
Even if the court disagrees? What do we need courts for the current regime should make decisions without checks or balances.
There must be a way to run an end around the court system.
Checks and balance is an illusion. There is nothing to stop the 3 branches of government from conspiring together to do whatever they like, except for the States and it seems even their power is being usurped by the federal government, ex: the health care reform bill.
Who needs them. It is obvious that the regime that is currently in power has an omnipotence that needs no scrutiny.
It can do nothing wrong.
Let us just turn all power over to our employees. It is obvious that they know better than us what our wants and needs should be.
I am thankful that the govt has allowed me to live another day.
Hail the corporation of the united states.
Arthur, the FCC controls the radio waves where you can hear anything from soup to nuts.
Govt should also take control of bookstores. What if Barnes and Noble gives more shelf space to Glenn Beck's book over Michelle Obama: An American Story by David Colbert.
That would not be fair. Bookstores should only sell equal volumes of every book.
Who cares what the people wish to purchase. They should read what the govt tells them they can and be happy.
Of course! That's why we elected Obama, so he can "level the playing field" and make us all equal. It's not enough to be born equal, we have to be made to stay equal! Hooray!
Exactly!! And that's what you want????
Look to see who Robert Mcchesney is. He's the guy behind this push for net neutrality. He's an anti capitalist, socialist that thinks the media should be controlled by government. So yes, I'm worried the government will control content. Corporations will give people what they're willing to pay for for a profit.
We need the Fairness Doctrine. Imagine if you and poppa blues were all that could post here...all day long 20 hours a day with no divergent views....that's what it's like on the radio now. At least where I live. It's right wing talk 20 hrs a day.
No other points of view. As a consequence, I don't listen. There is no place for me on the public airwaves. The right-wing bought it all up. THAT'S what the FCC is trying to avoid with Net Nuetrality...fairness in the internet, not a total take-over by right wing monied interests.
Why not just do away with freedom of speech all together and turn the airwaves over to the corporation of the united states.
We could listen to govt propoganda all day.
Just like good Social Democrats.
"all day long 20 hours a day with no divergent views....that's what it's like on the radio now. At least where I live. It's right wing talk 20 hrs a day.
No other points of view. As a consequence, I don't listen. "
That is absolutely not true.
You live on Cape Cod? Here is a radio station for you.
http://wwb.wgbh.org/cainan/?CFID=916126 … N=33779737
OK. So I admit I have not read every single one of the posts here in excruciating detail, but could someone give me a sensible explanation of HOW someone (anyone, government, Comcast, whoever) could control the Internet.
The same way that China does.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnf … _db053.htm
This is not a particularly detailed answer, if you'll pardon me for saying
It is widely believed that the Internet poses an insurmountable threat to authoritarian rule. But political science scholarship has provided little support for this conventional wisdom, and a number of case studies from around the world show that authoritarian regimes are finding ways to control and counter the political impact of Internet use. While the long-term political impact of the Internet remains an open question, Kalathil and Boas argue that these strategies for control may continue to be viable in the short to medium term.
Many authoritarian regimes translate a long and successful history of control over other information and communication technologies into strong control of Internet development within their borders. Potential challenges to the state may arise from Internet use in several areas: the mass public, civil society, the economy, and the international community. Authoritarian states will likely respond to these challenges with a variety of reactive measures: restricting Internet access, filtering content, monitoring on-line behavior, or even prohibiting Internet use entirely. In addition, such states seek to extend central control through proactive strategies, guiding the development of the medium to promote their own interests and priorities. Through a combination of reactive and proactive strategies, an authoritarian regime can counter the challenges posed by Internet use and even utilize the Internet to extend its reach and authority.
In this paper the authors illustrate how two authoritarian regimes, China and Cuba, are maintaining control over the Internet's political impact through different combinations of reactive and proactive strategies. These cases illustrate that, contrary to assumptions, different types of authoritarian regimes may be able to control and profit from the Internet. Examining the experiences of these two countries may help to shed light on other authoritarian regimes' strategies for Internet development, as well as help to develop generalizable conclusions about the impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule.
No. This is a country, not a corporation! Don't just provide for those who have money!
They are called PUBLIC airwaves for a reason...we ALL own them, not just the ones with the most money. We are cutting off the free speech of millions because they can't afford to buy airspace....
1871, February 21: Congress Passes an Act to Provide a Government for
the District of Columbia, also known as the Act of 1871.
With no constitutional authority to do so, Congress creates a separate form of
government for the District of Columbia, a ten mile square parcel of land (see,
Acts of the Forty-first Congress," Section 34, Session III, chapters 61 and 62).
The act -- passed when the country was weakened and financially depleted in
the aftermath of the Civil War -- was a strategic move by foreign interests
(international bankers) who were intent upon gaining a stranglehold on the
coffers and neck of America. Congress cut a deal with the international bankers
(specifically Rothschilds of London) to incur a DEBT to said bankers. Because
the bankers were not about to lend money to a floundering nation without
serious stipulations, they devised a way to get their foot in the door of the
The Act of 1871 formed a corporation called THE UNITED STATES. The
corporation, OWNED by foreign interests, moved in and shoved the original
Constitution into a dustbin. With the Act of 1871, the organic Constitution was
defaced -- in effect vandalized and sabotage -- when the title was capitalized
and the word "for" was changed to "of" in the title.
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the constitution of
the incorporated UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. It operates in an economic
capacity and has been used to fool the People into thinking it governs the
Republic. It does is not! Capitalization is NOT insignificant when one is referring
to a legal document. This seemingly "minor" alteration has had a major impact
on every subsequent generation of Americans. What Congress did by passing
the Act of 1871 was create an entirely new document, a constitution for the
government of the District of Columbia, an INCORPORATED government.
Hey Arthur you da man ;-) Not many Americans know that and most of them don't understand or care.
By the way I don't think the government should take over the internet nor have I heard any such plans to do so. But the right to free speech should be guaranteed here just as it's guaranteed elsewhere.
Just because some posters here get on my nerves (or cause me to fall out of my chair laughing) ABSOLUTELY does not mean that I want someone controlling what I read or preventing me from seeing opposing opinions. Those opposing opinions are IMPORTANT!
Well, as far as the internet goes and the FCC.....whoever has control where I live needs to make a change.
I do not have hi-speed internet and cannot get it. Not even from cable, since there is No longer cable even available. And I live in a populated area outside a city.
I am in an area with what is called "ownership rights to a particular rural cable company." No other cable provider is allowed to provide service.
The cable company when here never allowed their internet service in a 5 mile stretch. (Which is the most populated area outside the city area on any side) It was the worst cable service I had ever had when I moved here 17 years ago and when Direct TV came available, I immediately switched.
A few years ago the cable company shut-off their cable service to everyone in this 5 mile stretch. It came from the north...skipped the 5 miles and started again south of us.
Those customers have cable and cable high speed internet.
This past summer the cable company took down the cable lines in this area.
OK...so now I should be able to get the city cable company to bring cable internet this way south. NO.
They told me that the rural cable company still has the ownership rights to the area and they will not relinquish those rights.
The phone service is AT&T. There is an AT&T sub-station 3 miles up the road. I have tried to get high speed internet through them. They say NO. This is for everyone (only south)south of the city. A person I know who works there says it would cost them a close to a million dollars for a tower.
Well...I don't want their broadband...I want their DSL through the phone line!!! Being an electrician and haven installed the lines in homes for DSL I know they can do this. I have been in their sub-station and seen how they can add more customers. They choose not to.
But what they will do is claim that the increase in rates is to help provide more internet in other areas in the future, which never comes!!!
Here is my biggest complaint to them.....it may be pennies, but when I pay for the land-line phone service and dial-up internet....part of that goes to pay for ALL internet. I want my money's worth to me!
They can allow high speed internet here if they choose to.
So...if it takes the FCC to force these companies to bring high speed internet to people like me and my neighbors who are already giving them money...You bet I will support that.
The AT&T and rural Cable Corporation here is monopolizing the area and not serving their customers the way they have agreed to. The FCC needs to crack down on them and give equal service to everyone.
Similar problem here. I live in a neighborhood of Los Angeles. There are two high-speed providers; Time Warner Cable and Verizon Network (FIOS). Each delivers the same services (television, phone, and internet) but in entirely different ways.
To switch from one to another requires a commitment in waiting time, a service call, and a contract. If I want internet only from either I pay way more than if I get a bundled package. I reject the bundles because I am completely happy using a cell phone and don't want a "land line." I don't want cable TV because broadcast is HD and the providers require an "upconvert" box (with it's own fee) to get high quality television that I can already get "free."
Despite the apparent competition they are so close in price it's a matter of pennies a month difference.
They both have an existing captive market and neither is doing anything substantial to give the other a 'run for their money.'
Vios was an easy choice for us because they offer access to some satellite channels we watch all the time.
Right! This is about curbing the monopoly and stranglehold a few companies want to have on the Internet. Speaking from personal experience, I do not want Comcast controlling the internet.
And I hope they get to radio sometime soon. That is also a stranglehold by a few companies, and a singular mind-set. Public property for private gain! And propaganda. "Think like me, or don't think at all" is their motto I geuss.
And fontes--I do believe that article you posted is true. It would explain an AWFUL lot....like how our gvt. can dole out money and they don't have to tell anybody where it went!
They are scared. Scared of something or someone. That's what I think.
"And I hope they get to radio sometime soon."Think like me, or don't think at all" is their motto I guess."
And you want to prove that by whining about free enterprise in the one media outlet not 99% controlled by liberals? Ok ms. chavez...
"They are scared. Scared of something or someone. "
Yeah, about that...
6 companies own everything...they are hardly liberal.
More in the Murdoch vein.
And I do know of what I speak...talk radio used to be all points of view, all political persuasions, all opinions welcomed.
Not anymore...and this from people who say they stand for freedom.
Like I said before...freedom to be just like me! That's their motto. That's your motto. imo
btw...I've seen that memo. "Whiners, whining" are catch-words to be used to slander people and make the converstion all about them and not the subject matter. Dirty politics as usual.
If you don't like the word 'whiner' then stop whining. Where you live, in addition to almost everything on TV, nearly all movies you watch, the uniform message from all educational outlets, the largest regional newspaper, and everything coming out of your local representatives' mouths (leaving aside for a moment what goes in) is monolithically liberal. On top of that, you can listen to WBUR all day and night if you have a radio fetish. So the 'whining' about radio and the calls for silencing opposing views that are still restricted to a small part of the spectrum of communication (and that's why this under-served demographic frequents that part - making it profitable) is irrational as well as antagonistic to free speech. To live in one of the most ideologically lopsided states in the nation and to WHINE about hearing an opposing point of view is like Alice in that place at the end of the Blue Line.
That's exactly how they said to use it....
Watch your e-mail for the next memo...
Oh, and don't let the "Hound" get it first...wink wink
1) The “Digital Economy Bill” was passed in the UK only a few days ago, on 7 April 2010, sponsored by Lord Mandelson (Bilderberg Group) rushed through in a late night session with hardly any MPs present (sound familiar)?
This is the first step in Internet censorship in the UK.
The legislation will also allow the Home Secretary to place “a technical obligation on internet service providers” to block whichever sites it wishes.
This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites.
2) Craig Mundie, (Bilderberg Group), Chief Strategy Officer of Microsoft, is calling for users to be “licensed” to use the Internet.
Can you see where this is going?
I agree that this is a serious topic. I personally think that those of us with no direct experience of real-life totalitarianism (ie. those of us who have grown up in North America or Britain, for example), tend to think of such things as the stuff of fairy tales (after all, they only happen in places we have never experienced, like Nazi-occupied Europe, or the Soviet Union). It then becomes easy to poo-poo such talk as "conspiracy theories" run amok.
But in fact both common sense and the historical record suggest that certain interests tend usually to try and control the masses one way or another. I think we who have spent our whole lives in a democracy can forget this.
According to what I've just read, the bill's function is for blocking sites/users who are involved in copyright infringement or piracy. But yes, I can well imagine that a certain amount of "function creep" will come into it somewhere down the line.
"This could include the authority to appoint private militias, who will have the power to kick you off the internet, spy on your use of the network, demand the removal of files in addition to the blocking of websites."
This is already happening. Has been since 2002. DARPA's Total Information Awareness Network.
That was under Bush,btw, so I guess he was a communist dictator tyrant after all, huh?
And now Comcast wants to buy up all the space. They want to decide who gets what and where and how much it will cost...in effect, they want to own the Internet. Net Neutrality will stop them.
And yes, I love Diane Reim...but the rest of it, no It is not talk radio, but information radio... much like WBZ. I like talk radio. Have since 1985. Republicans have made sure that people like me have no voice in that genre any more.
So don't talk to me about freedom. You're not interested in my freedom, only yours.
No it is not. It may be interviews, or people coming on to promote their work....
But it is not people with differing points of view discussing current affairs. That is the talk radio I'm talking about...the genre that has disappeared to make way for the OPV...One
Freedom of speech my Aunt Fanny!
Guess the only amendment they care about is number 2.
by G. Diane Nelson Trotter2 weeks ago
Is net neutrality having a negative impact on the economy? Is it better for Internet providers to provide faster services discriminantly?
by Kierstin Gunsberg2 weeks ago
Hey Everyone! I was just wondering if anyone else is feeling concerned about how repealing net neutrality might affect our ability to earn here through the HubPages network. Almost all of my traffic comes from Google,...
by tobey1006 years ago
Just last month the Federal Communications Commission did what a federal court informed them they did not have the authority to do, they voted to set up regulations for the internet and gave their initiative a placid...
by Tessa Schlesinger10 months ago
Donald Trump has just elected Ajit Pai to head the Federal Communications Commission. He is strongly opposed to net neutrality and will probably override the decidion reached last year to keep net neutrality. I'm not...
by Amber6 days ago
You guys do know that if Net Neutrality fails, writing articles on Hubpages will be essentially useless, right? I doubt any of us relies on Hubpages income as our sole income, but we can kiss the majority of our profits...
by BillyDRitchie6 years ago
Okay, we used to have it, now we don't. It is no surprise that with the repealing of the FD came the rise of talk radio. Now we have certain groups clamoring for its return.Do we let the free market...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.