« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

America unites against Obama on Net Neutrality

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  November 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

What do you get when you combine an ISP active in Internet filtering with a left-wing group that is essentially the online ACLU? You get the broad, bipartisan opposition to the FCC’s plans for Internet regulation that are being sold as Net Neutrality.

It was remarkable enough when Governors left and right all wrote to the FCC against Net Neutrality. But now when Comcast is on the same side of a dispute as the Electronic Froniter Foundation, that’s a sign that nobody who is aware of the technical issues wants any part of what Barack Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski are planning.

Comcast has been a leader in, well, taking things away from its customers. They are routinely booed on the Internet by active users because of the steps they take to cap and restrict the heaviest users of their resources. And it now comes out that as the FCC has challenged Comcast over some of those restrictions, Comcast has fired back by challenging the legitimacy of the FCC’s expansion into regulating the Internet.

By itself that is not surprising, as Comcast has much to lose from large-scale FCC meddling. However what is surprising is to find that the Electronic Frontier Foundation appears to agree. Says Ars Techinca:

The Electronic Frontier Foundation calls the agency’s proposed rulemaking a “Trojan Horse” which is “built on a shoddy and dangerous foundation.” Since Congress didn’t give the FCC specific authority in this area, what’s next, worries EFF—an “Internet Decency Statement” pushed by conservatives, or an “Internet Lawful Use Policy” urged on the agency by the Hollywood studios? That’s why the group calls the move “a power grab that would leave the Internet subject to the regulatory whims of the FCC long after Chairman Genachowski leaves his post.”

The EFF is one of those left-leaning ACLU-type groups, so when they agree with a big telecommunications firm on the impropriety of a regulation action, that’s notable. It’s a sign that Obama’s FCC is far out of bounds in its Net Neutrality plans, and that only the farthest left-wing radicals are in favor of what Genachowski is planning for us.

We have to stop him. We have to stop the Obama drive toward Single Payer Internet. It’s the mainstream, common sense position.

Tags: , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://charlemagne-the-hammer.blogspot.com/ DerKrieger

    that the EFF is on the Right side. After all the Left believes the Internet to be a public good requiring equal access for all rather than a commercial enterprise where you pay for access and speed on a scale that reflects your use. Interesting.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    I have come to the conclusion that they are like silly angry college students who think that everything ought to be free or subsidized. (except of course anything they create).

    They really look at copyrights as an anachronism and do not mind stealing from anywhere, there is no honesty, or fore thought, only their own pure selfishness.

  • melvinwinter

    The face of net neutrality: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/10/obama-convention-delegates-to.html

  • Finrod

    The EFF tends to be more true to its mission than the ACLU is. The ACLU, while claiming to be the protector of the Bill of Rights, tries to pretend that the Second Amendment doesn’t exist, plus it has a history of ignoring its own principles for its own self-promotion. Until the recent situation with the Chamber of Commerce, I hadn’t seen a major position that the EFF took that I had a serious disagreement with.

  • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

    well need them soon in order to keep Outposts of Freedom and TRUTH as we return to Dial-up Servers to run BBS style RedStates across the country.

    I only wish I were making a funny :(

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Obama people: Good, kind, and freedom-loving
    Republicans: Wicked censors

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    If Obama gets his hands on the Internet, dial-up access won’t be immune to the consequences.

  • justpassingby

    You guys are against net neutrality? You’re ok with you’re ISP having tiered access? Only allowing you to access certain sites in certain priced tiers? Your ok with allowing the ISP to censor what you can view on the internet? Allowing a corporation to have the power to control what they think is ok for us to see. Hmmmmm sounds just as bad as all the talk that i read on here of Obama’s “control”. If your lives are controlled by the gov’t or the corporations….its the same thing.

  • Hooah_Mac

    Gov’t or the corporations – it is not the same thing.

    The government has the force of law. Corporations do not. It is that simple.

  • Finrod

    I read the EFF statement; they’re concerned about both conservatives that would want to regulate the Internet to enforce decency standards, and Hollywood that would want to regulate the Internet to their own financial benefit. While not all or even most conservatives would want to regulate the Internet to enforce decency, some would; I seem to recall one front-pager here that would like to see the death penalty for pornographers, and we all know the Internet has been filled with pornography for a very long time, certainly since before I first got onto the Internet back in 1987. So while the EFF may be overly concerned about how conservatives would regulate the Internet, their concern is not completely misplaced.

    The fact that the EFF would rather defeat net neutrality than see it implemented in a bad way puts them ahead of pretty much everyone in power in the Democratic Party.

  • justpassingby

    I understand quite well how a government is supposed to work. Corporations practically own most of the people in congress. You mean to imply to me that corporations don’t spend millions of dollars toward politicians to not have legislation that falls in favor of them? Corporations DO have the force of law via lobbyists and “contributions”. You can’t expect me to believe that corporations have no clout on the hill.

    I do suppose my thinking on that was a bit flawed due to the fact that a company can charge and make changes to the service it provides you, you can choose not to use it. Sadly though there are areas of the country where there is only one provider of internet, so that case your pretty much locked in.