No, not Net Neutrality, although that’s the pretense and cover. Net Neuterality (to neuter The Net) is the goal and Obama, once again, is playing his part masterfully. Net Neutrality was part of his campaign platform for his first term, but he saved it for the lame duck last half of his second term to address — and don’t think that wasn’t by design, because it most assuredly was — to address it under circumstances that will put the issue to bed once and for all and the pipe dream that is Net Neutrality will sleep like Rip Van Winkle, but unlike Rip, it’ll never wake up and neither will the rubes who swallow this Kabuki bait hook, line and sinker.
How many of you out there believe Obama and the Dems give two hoots about Net Neutrality? If you raised your hand, even though I didn’t ask you to, you have a deserved appointment with the convenient, pop-out-of-the-cake IS (Islamic State for those who need to catch (haha) up). Off with your heads you impressionable naive jockstraps. For the rest of you, I’m glad to know others aren’t buying the faux concern for a free and unencumbered internet, just don’t buy Lush Blimpblow’s garbage as the alternative. Blimpblow’s playing his part in this too, and Blimpblow likes to see you gouged by the likes of Comcast and Time Warner. That’s who he ultimately works for — that’s capitalism in his eyes, not the small business entrepreneur that is the backbone of America. This is precisely why I embrace free enterprise and not necessarily capitalism. Capitalism, as it’s practiced currently, is anti-free enterprise and anti-free market. It’s a permutation of communism. It sucks. We can do much better if we only put the free back in free enterprise. Capitalists don’t want that though, and so they legislate the perpetuity of their monopolization of everything, and everything includes OUR internet.
Officially, the Republicans have washed into Congress and taken control for the second half of Obama’s second term to prevent him from doing any more damage to America. This includes allegedly repealing the Affordable Care Act and blocking Obama’s attempts to encode Net Neutrality into law. Keep in mind “officially” is the operative word. In reality, the Republicans are playing the bad cop in this crappy Kabuki theater production to Obama’s good cop, or vice versa depending on whether you choose the red pill or the blue pill (affiliate as either Republican or Democrat). I choose neither pill, but I will take a couple shots of whiskey please and maybe a doobie if you don’t mind. It’s a ridiculous charade and the tragedy is the general public has been indoctrinated and conditioned to accept and believe this nonsense. What can you do? Nothing, except laugh and/or cry. I laugh, but you can cry like a sissy if it makes you feel better.
Alright, I see I’m already on the road to long-windedness with this post and I told myself upon my return I would shorten them up. Here’s my point in a nutcracker. The Kabuki to which I refer is designed to impale any efforts for Net Neutrality permanently. The ISP’s, in combination with their division called Government, want to control the internet; how much you pay and what you can access with it. Obama’s words related to this are perfect in every way — it’s what the internet should be, but it’s not his intent. His words are cover. He’s setting up a softball slow pitch for the Republicans to hit out of the park, meaning it’s the Republicans part in this Kabuki feature to slam Net Neutrality to the turf and snap its neck in Jack Tatum to Darryl Stingley fashion.
Here is an excellent article from The Verge covering the topic of Net Neutrality. It’s comprehensive and covers all facets of this important issue, and it is a vitally important issue. In another future post I will focus on the same modus operandi used to demolish Net Neutrality applied to healthcare. The same Game (so many games within The Game) is played, once again, on an easily duped and mislead public. Jonathan Gruber is correct when he says the American people are stupid. By and large they are, but it wasn’t and isn’t a choice. Most, except a handful of elite, are born into a compulsory system of social conditioning and indoctrination and as a result the capacity for objective, critical thought is either eviscerated or greatly impaired. Net Neutrality is the final nail in that coffin of ignorance. Without access to all information all the time, and instead subjected to 24/7 inanity and propaganda, there is no chance for Americans to be other than stupid except for the few who step outside of the fray. Those few who do stray from the intentional fray will be dealt with harshly by the rubes who have no idea they’re rubes. Those who dare to not abide, will be isolated and ostracized which is as harsh a punishment as can be dealt considering we humans are social creatures.
I will reproduce The Verge article linked to above in its entirety and highlight some of the excellent comments to the article since most of you don’t click on my excellent links. I can lead a horse to water, but if I want it to drink, apparently I have to force a feeding tube down its throat, so “here’s ur feedin tube Massa Hawkins, all minty and frosty jus like you like it.” Keep in mind as you read and research this article and its accompanying commentary that like The Affordable Healthcare Act the purpose of raising the issue by the officials raising it is directly contrary to the official intent encompassed in the duplicitous names they provide for the charade. The Affordable Care Act should be the The Insurance Profitablilty Act or The Unaffordable Care Act and The Net Neutrality Act should be named The Net Neuterality Act instead. Yes, I realize they haven’t given the Net Neutrality issue an official name yet, but they will, so I’m being preemptive since like a crappy quarterback, they’re (both the Republicans and Democrats inside and outside The Beltway in this Kabuki Theater charade) telegraphing their pass to the tight end.
Obama Says FCC Should Reclassify Internet As A Utility
By Jacob Kastrenakes on November 10, 2014 09:30 am
President Obama has come out in support of reclassifying internet service as a utility, a move that would allow the Federal Communications Commission to enforce more robust regulations and protect net neutrality. “To put these protections in place, I’m asking the FCC to reclassifying internet service under Title II of a law known as the Telecommunications Act,” Obama says in a statement this morning. “In plain English, I’m asking [the FCC] to recognize that for most Americans, the internet has become an essential part of everyday communication and everyday life.”
There’s been a growing battle around protecting net neutrality — the principle that all internet traffic, no matter what it is or where it comes from, should be treated equally — ever since the FCC’s original protections were struck down in court earlier this year. Those protections were able to be struck down because the commission didn’t make the rules in a way that it actually had authority over, so it’s been trying to create new rules that it will definitely be able to enforce. It hasn’t chosen to use Title II so far, but net neutrality advocates, now including President Obama, have been pushing for its use.
Regulating internet service under Title II would mean reclassifying it as a utility, like water. This means that internet providers would just be pumping internet back and forth through pipes and not actually making any decisions about where the internet goes. For the most part, that’s a controversial idea in the eyes of service providers alone. It means that they’re losing some control over what they sell, and that they can’t favor certain services to benefit their own business. Instead, providers would be stuck allowing consumers to use the internet as they want to, using whatever services they like without any penalty. If that sounds pretty great, it’s because that’s basically how the internet has worked up until now.
Obama’s support of Title II reclassification comes at a critical time for net neutrality. While the FCC is in the process of making new rules to protect net neutrality, those rules would actually allow internet providers to offer so-called “fast lanes,” effectively defeating the purpose of net neutrality in the first place. During a public comment period over the summer, Americans spoke out loudly against the proposal, but it’s not yet clear what the commission plans to do in response. FCC chair Tom Wheeler has said that he isn’t entirely opposed to Title II, but that’s appeared to be only if other methods won’t work first.
In a statement outlining what he’d like internet service to look like, Obama highlights four major points: internet providers wouldn’t be allowed to block websites offering legal content, they wouldn’t be allowed to intentionally slow down or speed up certain websites or services based on their own preferences, and they wouldn’t be able to offer paid fast lanes. Obama also asks that the FCC investigate and potentially apply net neutrality rules to the interconnect points that sit between service providers, like Comcast and Verizon, and content providers, like Netflix. That’s potentially huge news for Netflix, which has been arguing that this area of the internet should be covered by net neutrality all year.
Obama also asks that the commission apply these rules to mobile internet service. That would be a significant change as well, as mobile service hasn’t previously been subject to the same net neutrality rules that wired connections have been. That said, Obama does leave a significant amount of room for exceptions in the wireless space, potentially allowing some amount of throttling so that providers can manage their networks when under heavy use. Notably, his proposal also asks the FCC not to enforce rate regulations on internet service.
There’s still the big question of whether the FCC will listen to Obama’s recommendation and whether Congress will actually allow it. Obama’s support of Title II reclassification may provide the political support that the commission needs to justify such a rule change, but with Republicans wary of regulation taking over the Senate, it’s an increasingly risky proposition. The FCC may set the rules, but there’s plenty that Congress can do to sway its decisions. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has already tweeted out, “‘Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”
Following Obama’s announcement, the FCC responded with a statement that doesn’t really move the needle — and, in fact, basically says that it’ll lump Obama’s opinion in with everyone else’s. “As an independent regulatory agency we will incorporate the President’s submission into the record of the Open Internet proceeding,” chairman Wheeler says. “We welcome comment on it and how it proposes to use Title II of the Communications Act.”
Obama is well aware that he doesn’t set the policy here, but his statement points out to the commission that this policy change is well supported by the public. “The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately the decision is their’s alone,” Obama says. “But the public has already commented nearly 4 million times asking that consumers — not the cable company — gets to decide which sites they use.”
The Hill reports that Republicans are already moving toward an overhaul of the Communications Act after last week’s election, potentially streamlining the rules used to regulate different types of services, like phone, TV, and internet. Exactly what those changes will mean are unclear, but net neutrality advocates are reportedly concerned that it could move toward a deregulation of the communications industry.
In its statement, the FCC also confirms reports that it’s been examining taking a “hybrid” approach to net neutrality. It’s believed that the commission’s hybrid plan would place heavy regulations on interconnect points — making content providers like Netflix happy — while still allowing some degree of fast lanes for consumers.
Ultimately, the FCC just says that it needs more time. While it had hoped to have net neutrality rules in place by the end of the year, it’s clearly found that its current plans aren’t what people want. It now says that it needs time to determine what legal obstacles would come up should it use a hybrid approach or full Title II reclassification. “The more deeply we examined the issues around the various legal options,” Wheeler writes, “the more it has become plain that there is more work to do.”
As I mentioned above, the commentary to the linked The Verge article is as informative and insightful, if not more so, as/than the article itself, so make sure you peruse and review the comments if you have the time, and if you don’t have the time, try to make some time. It’s that important. Of course, I understand American sports, right now college and pro football, are equally important and require a great deal of your time, so you’ll have to choose. I’m guessing most will choose football. I can assure you that’s one thing that won’t be impeded by Net Neuterality. Bread & Circuses will continue to be front and center, you’ll just pay more dearly for it, but it doesn’t matter, you’ll pay whatever the asking price is, because it’s one of the few things left that feeds, and corrodes, your rotting souls.
You’re right that the government is stopping small companies from entering the market but not for the reason that article states. The real reason is the power of the monopolies to extort ludicrous bills and guarantees from local governments, which have so far managed to stifle competition by stopping completely municipal internet or cheaper prices from third parties.
If you research what’s asserted in the above comment further, you’ll find this is precisely what the ISP’s do and it’s what Lush Blimpblow loves about capitalism. The nattering nabob Blimpblow bellows about the Chicoms but he fails to turn the mirror on himself and his fellow capitalist Americoms. They’re all, the Chicoms and the Americoms, birds of the same feather. Tyrannical manipulation, exploitation and oppression of The Masses is their Game, and both of these divisions of Smart Communism are highly successful in their endeavor to monopolize the world and the universe.
I found the following comment telling, because apparently they can have a relatively free internet and a semblance of Net Neutrality in Europe and parts of Asia, but not in America — the alleged “land of the free and home of the brave.” It’s more like “the land of the indoctrinated & incarcerated and the home of the cowed & herded” if you ask me, or even if you don’t ask me.
So I guess we can both agree that we need to allow Governments to allow companies to compete with the large corporations so that we have more choices and cheaper broadband; something that countries in Europe and Asia do really well.
The next quote speaks to what I mentioned earlier, and that’s Obama is not sincere in his intent, and his intent does not match his flashy rhetoric. If he is serious and honest about Net Neutrality, he would have 1.) addressed it early in his first term when he had significant cache and goodwill and 2.) would never have appointed the CEO of the Cable Lobbying Organization to be the head of the FCC considering his (Obama’s) “official” intention regarding Net Neutrality. It’s clear to me, crushing Net Neutrality once and for all and neutering The Net instead, is a tag team effort by the Obama adminstration and the Republicans. It’s not good theater, but instead rather shabby and transparent for anyone who has any sense. Obama, via his bizarre behavior in his second term but especially in 2014, ensured a Republican takeover of Congress. It was ordained and he and his administrators and handlers did their part to make it happen.
It’s so odd – Obama appointed the CEO of the Cable Lobbying Organization to be the head of the FCC (who would “classify” these entities as utilities), what 1 year ago?….It’s an independent agency, Obama doesn’t get to run things there (and he knows that), so the Prez doesn’t get to tell FCCChairman Wheeler what to do.
It’s almost as if Obama thinks people will just take him at this powerless PR statement and forget all the damage he’s actually been doing behind the scenes over these years.
I’m all for this happening, but this is disengenuous at best…cause if he really felt this way he wouldn’t have appointed Cable Lobbying Organization CEO to be in charge of the FCC.
The following commentator validates and underscores what I just mentioned, even though he/she would never admit we’re being scammed by both “sides” in the faux debate with the already determined outcome.
Yep, damn it. Obama was my guy. Twice. He is right on this issue which will fuel the ignorant opposition to oppose it just because, like everything else. His weak-willed party lets pro-business Rethuglicans and Fox run roughshod over them and has got next to nothing done for six years. And now that the Senate and House is in majority they will let that Comcast and Verizon money shove the internet fast lanes down our throats.
And finally, this excellent comment addresses what they will do to content on the internet by manipulating the term “legal.” Porn will never be challenged because it’s too lucrative, but places like my blog will be blacklisted and inaccessible. Also, many websites some of you hardened anti-Americans like to visit will no longer be accessible because they will be considered “illegal,” and even though I consider you repugnant and imbecilic, I don’t condone that. Adults should be able to make up their own minds, otherwise they’re not really adults. Many of you had a choice to be the fools you are — and I believe everyone should have the choice to be a fool if that is their wish.
This is what concerns me. Al these statement talk about legal content but what this means isn’t defined in a clear way. Are we allowed to visit wikileaks, use Tor….? Changing the definition of legal to fit the needs of the government or Hollywood is a hidden danger in all these discussions.
Another commentator said: Look at the First Amendment. People talk about it as ‘freedom of speech’ but in the fact that it exists – there is automatically less freedom than there was before it.
I disagree; the way that (most of) the first amendment is worded, there are no qualifiers. The goal is to outline the fact that people have these rights by the nature of being born, and ensuring that the government cannot take those rights away. Let’s get the first amendment posted here for reference:
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.
So in the text, there are not many qualifying “weasel words”, excepting the right of the people to PEACEABLY protest. That part actually does take something away because it inevitably also says that people cannot VIOLENTLY protest. However, the part protecting free speech does not have any such qualifiers.
Now, compare that to the text The Verge posted (which is not legal text, but it’s what we’re working from), using the phrase “LEGAL content” absolutely is a qualifier, and it’s one that you could drive a legal dumptruck through. If you don’t think that word will be stretched and contorted a million different ways, considering our current government situation, you’re insane.
Following, is a YouTube video of an interview by The Verge with Susan Crawford, a professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC. She believes, and thoroughly and professionally supports her case, that the way to ensure Net Neutrality is at the local level (via mayors), not the state or nation level and keep in mind she once-upon-a-time served under Obama as his science and technology advisor. After watching this video, consider everything I and others have mentioned and underscored, and try to tell me Obama doesn’t know what Susan Crawford knows and therefore is determined, as a whore of the cable industry, to sequester Net Neutrality at the federal level thus precluding any grassroots local activism to secure Net Neutrality without federal government interference per Susan Crawford’s suggestion. Obama’s heading her suggestion off at the pass, in my best John Wayne impersonation.
To our Russian friends and non-Americans who visit this blog and read my posts and comments, I know I’ve been hard on Putin’s Russia. For that I won’t apologize, but what I will concede is what I’ve already conceded more than once at this blog; The Russian Oligarchs are a branch of the same tree of which the American Oligarchs are also a branch. The tree is the WWON (World Wide Oligarch Network) and the tree’s purpose is to monopolize the world and universe and it’s doing a damn good job in that dishonorable pursuit. Both branches seek to stifle freedom unless it’s the freedom to pay exorbitantly for shitty products and services which really isn’t freedom at all. The Net has been too free up to this point, so Russia, as is typical of it, takes out its hammer and smashes the freedom it zealously disdains. Russia is not subtle — it never was and it never will be. Russia has always bluntly and brutally squashed any form of unordained and unbridled expression and creativity, hence Putin’s crackdown on The Net. So emphatic is Russia to resort to the hammer (the hammer was even part of the U.S.S.R.’s emblem on its flag) to eliminate such threats, America’s own Peter, Paul & Mary rewrote a shitty Pete Seeger song about it as follows:
The Obama adminstration, The Democrats and The Republicans, all of whom represent not the Little People but the American Oligarch branch of the WWON (World Wide Oligarch Network) tree, have the same goal as Putin’s Russia in regards to The Net and Net Neutrality. Like Putin’s Russia, the American Oligarchs seek to neuter The Net — they’re just a little more sophisticated and less crude about it than Putin’s Russia. The American Oligarchs have chosen the velvet-glove-covered fist hidden in a trojan horse rather than a hammer. The result will be the same.
That’s it for now. Keep lying well and live long. I know I will — at least the lying part, but with the living long part, there are no guarantees.
Earlier, I mentioned that ISP’s control the legislative process to hold you and your internet experience captive. They don’t just do this at the federal level, but also at the state and local level. The following Motherboard Vice article provides excellent insight into what can only be called communism. Blimpblow is an asshole. He works for these totalitarian creeps. He is an Americom.
Hundreds of Cities Are Wired With Fiber—But Telecom Lobbying Keeps It Unused
In light of the ongoing net neutrality battle, many people have begun looking to Google and its promise of high-speed fiber as a potential saving grace from companies that want to create an “internet fast lane.” Well, the fact is, even without Google, many communities and cities throughout the country are already wired with fiber—they just let their residents use it.
The reasons vary by city, but in many cases, the reason you can’t get gigabit internet speeds—without the threat of that service being provided by a company that wants to discriminate against certain types of traffic—is because of the giant telecom businesses that want to kill net neutrality in the first place.
Throughout the country, companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, CenturyLink, and Verizon have signed agreements with cities that prohibit local governments from becoming internet service providers and prohibit municipalities from selling or leasing their fiber to local startups who would compete with these huge corporations.
Because ISPs often double as cable and telephone companies, during contract negotiations with governments, they’ll often offer incentives to the government—such as better or faster service, earlier access to (their company’s) cable internet for residents, and the like—in exchange for a non-compete clause.
To be clear, these are often strictly local agreements between cities and cable giants.
More at link above
I thought this comment to the article was excellent, so I’m posting it as well since it underscores the sentiment of this blog post. Excuse the grammar.
In many cases City, County, State, and Federal Officials acting under the color of law and official right enter these ‘idiot agreements’ as if their ‘constituents’ requested it. In most cases the issue is never put to the People and their agents (so called representatives in government) act without the full, complete, and advised consent of the People they are supposedly representing. They arbitrarily decide that they know what is best for the whole and act accordingly (Generally what’s is most equitable for them (Public servants)).