FCC, FEC look to ruin the Internet • Tammy Bruce • Ajit Pai

FCC, FEC look to ruin the Internet

Now, with the feds’ latest effort, their new slogan might as well be, “If you like your Internet, you can keep your Internet.” Make no mistake: The Internet is under assault and saving it is up to us.

But now they want more. The left’s relevance relies on controlling the public discussion.

The right will be more than happy to use it when they get a chance.

Reinforcing the suspicion that every American should have about this unprecedented action is the fact that Mr. Wheeler is keeping the 332-page document outlining his plan secret from the American public. He released a four-page summary with major points, but refuses to release the full document to the public.

Do you still like this idea guys?

I don’t have much faith in the Republicans stopping this Democrat power grab, so this once again leaves the average person as the last line of defense against more federal overreach meant to silence and control the increasingly pesky, conservative and vocal citizen.

I agree with Ms. Bruce entirely here and have been doing my best to draw attention to this most recent power grab.

As Ajit Pai says, there is no justification for regulating internet access and yet, the drumbeats are deafening.

Especially around here.

a reply to: greencmp

I'm sorry, but I can't take anything this article has to say seriously because of the obvious bias. Wow, the Washington Times is a joke now if they allow reporters to write in this way:

Even prior to that massive win for the First Amendment, the left had succeeded at co-opting the legacy media by swamping the staff and reporters with ideological true believers, making newspapers and the broadcast networks nothing more than PR agencies for the leftist agenda

Sad.

IN any case, the idea of regulating the internet is an old one. It's also impossible. The internet will regulate them if they try and step on it too hard. There are far more resources, among the people when it comes to internet, then the government can ever dream of having.

~Tenth

a reply to: tothetenthpower

Check out Ajit Pai on c-span's "The Communicators". He makes a reasonable case sans any discernible (or at least obvious) political leaning.

Checking in so I can see the upcoming responses later.

I got money on who will show up and the tenor of their posts.

a reply to: greencmp

Thank you for that, I'll need to listen, cause it IS important and I don't' want to ignore valid information lol

~Tenth

a reply to: greencmp

The overwhelming majority of the content of that hit-piece is extreme exaggeration and outright lies that have come out of intense astro-turfing and disinformation efforts by the politicians who receive huge funding by Cable and Communications companies.

It's just about this close: ------||------ to being moved to our Ludicrous Online Lies (LOL) forum, it's so bad.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Tammy Bruce is not your favorite author, not surprising. And thank you for framing your comment just shy of ad hominem.

Now, about this ruining the internet thing, you have my undivided attention to clarify the benefits of this idea.

Quick hold the presses!! Another demophobic rant from a Fox Newsian bobblehead Feminist (I didn't think that was possible).

There took load off of SO for ya.

originally posted by: greencmp
you have my undivided attention to clarify the benefits of this idea.

First things first. Are you able to accept that the FCC's proposal for Net Neutrality and the Federal Election Commission seeking to ascertain the funding sources of newly created political blogs/sites are two very different things?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes.

a reply to: greencmp


The FCC's net neutrality proposal simply reclassifies all of the Internet as a common carrier, something Verizon FIOS broadband already is. Every Internet content provider want's this solution as it prevents corporate-controlled censorship of online content. Every big corporate media company and cable/ISP is against it because they want to control the flow of data, giving priority over some, and relegating others to a slow lane.

There is an overwhelming amount of disinformation, that came from the big-money cable industry efforts to frame this action as a government take-over of the Internet.


The FEC has become concerned about really large amounts of campaign money going into blogs and websites with no oversight. It's the unintended consequence of Citizens United. If any source of information takes significant money from a political campaign, there are required standards with which to comply. This action seeks to establish a means for compliance by those websites/blogs that exist primarily on campaign funding.

I don't necessarily like this, but as I said, it's expected because of the massive cash now pouring into campaigns.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Attempting to reclassify the internet as something like the telephone company last century can only serve to concentrate power and to create or expand monopolies.

“net neutrality is a solution in search of a problem.” -Ajit Pai

He correctly identifies the removal of existing restraints on new competition as a way to increase choice which is a concern of consumers. Most people have imagined this being about better video speeds or some such rubbish so, they should be paying attention to how counter productive this is to that goal.

Apparently this reclassification is fraught with legal hurdles which were erected specifically to prevent such meddling.

This whole thing is very dangerous and reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the potential for human corruption of the intent of legislation.

I believe that political speech should not be curtailed. That includes unions, associations, corporations and individuals.

a reply to: greencmp

The internet is far more reaching in keeping freedom in check than even the 2nd. This is why TPTB want it controlled and they have many fools buying into the lie. Look at net neutrality and how many people support it based on the lies being put forward......Helps out the little guys......Ya right.



Both the left and the right are controlled and enslaved by progressive ideals and you wanna know how I can see it. If they did not have progressive ideals they would be calling for smaller not larger governments. TPTB know what is best and want it controlled for many reasons including profit.

a reply to: greencmp

I already addressed this same subject in an earlier thread here.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

What the FEC is suggesting is that blogs or websites created by a particular campaign disclose that they're actually from that campaign or are paid by that campaign, just like they do with TV commercials. It would prevent astro-turf organizations popping up appearing as 'common citizens' when, in fact, they're bankrolled by specific PAC's or political candidates.

"Net Neutrality" is a lie on first reading. Action is not neutrality.

Why don't they call it Net Control? Control it is. Maybe "Net Equality" before its over.

"Net Neutrality" is obviously the Anaconda shifting its coils around the body of free thought.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Big corporations like regulations in the long run, every time. They have the have the money to deal with the legalities if not the regulators, and the bureaucracy enables a cartel by giving a plausible excuse for limited service. Big Cors will always be closer to the government than any users are.

The only thing the big companies can do is charge more than they do now. If the big companies charge too much, then entrepreneurs will start up new internet services.

Like fiber optic cables along power lines, or maybe snaked through the plumbing.


The FEC's only legitimate function is to count actual votes. Anything else is finagling by collectivist progressives.

- I stopped reading the article at the following point: ... Democrats and their liberal sycophants have been contemplating for years how best to smash the Internet. ...

- I wondered if she was following the Fox News Marching Orders?

- And, at the bottom of the article, it stated the following:

i]Tammy Bruce Opinion Columnist — Tammy Bruce, an Independent Conservative, is a radio talk-show host, New York Times’ bestselling author, blogger, Fox News’ on-air political contributor and a columnist at The Washington Times. Ms. Bruce served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and worked on several political campaigns as well. Her nationally syndicated talk ...

originally posted by: links234
a reply to: greencmp

I already addressed this same subject in an earlier thread here.

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers should enable access to all content and applications regardless of the source, and without favoring or blocking particular products or websites.

What the FEC is suggesting is that blogs or websites created by a particular campaign disclose that they're actually from that campaign or are paid by that campaign, just like they do with TV commercials. It would prevent astro-turf organizations popping up appearing as 'common citizens' when, in fact, they're bankrolled by specific PAC's or political candidates.

I've never seen or heard a commercial that accurately represents who is backing the candidate. And the internet is not as channelized as TV or Radio. There is no limit to the amount of web sites that could support or refute a candidate.

Net Neutrality will never work better than deregulation of cable markets. All of the problems of the ISPs comes from the local monopolies created by local governments.

More cable companies, or the threat of more cable companies are the only ways to insure the lowest cost and the best service.

originally posted by: DMFL1133
- I stopped reading the article at the following point: ... Democrats and their liberal sycophants have been contemplating for years how best to smash the Internet. ...

- I wondered if she was following the Fox News Marching Orders?

- And, at the bottom of the article, it stated the following:

i]Tammy Bruce Opinion Columnist — Tammy Bruce, an Independent Conservative, is a radio talk-show host, New York Times’ bestselling author, blogger, Fox News’ on-air political contributor and a columnist at The Washington Times. Ms. Bruce served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and worked on several political campaigns as well. Her nationally syndicated talk ...

Why do you suppose she is speaking out against the agenda she had formerly represented?

originally posted by: DMFL1133
- I stopped reading the article at the following point: ... Democrats and their liberal sycophants have been contemplating for years how best to smash the Internet. ...

- I wondered if she was following the Fox News Marching Orders?

- And, at the bottom of the article, it stated the following:

i]Tammy Bruce Opinion Columnist — Tammy Bruce, an Independent Conservative, is a radio talk-show host, New York Times’ bestselling author, blogger, Fox News’ on-air political contributor and a columnist at The Washington Times. Ms. Bruce served as president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and worked on several political campaigns as well. Her nationally syndicated talk ...

If either party is in favor of something, you know it makes the government bigger.

With "Net Neutrality" the government will decide which small government web sites get all kinds of "Neutrality".

Would the government ever censor the internet?

I would rather overcome a higher price than try to overcome a brainwashing censored internet.