« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Attack of the Freeloaders

Every time I mention at Red State that freeloaders are the driving force behind the Obama-Google Net Neutrality plan, the freeloaders flip out. Those leeches contribute nothing but demand everything from others: Free downloads of music, free downloads of movies, and free downloads of games are what they already take from the Internet and of course the idea of Net Neutrality is to create a government mandate for free use of all that download capacity itself.

Freeloaders benefit because, hey, free stuff! Google benefits because the freeloaders drive up ad rates at Gmail, Youtube, Blogger, Google Maps, and of course the constantly rumored GDrive storage service. Obama benefits because he finally gets to throw his base a bone, he gets power over the Internet, and he gets a step closer to Single Payer Internet in fact.

The problem with this is that the rest of us lose. That fact is becoming ever more apparent to even the left as it studies phase two of the Obama Internet agenda, the National Broadband Plan. Proponents of such a plan are increasingly opposing Net Neutrality, creating a broad left-right alliance against the Obama-Google agenda, and in favor of liberty, choice, and markets.

Says Brent Wilkes, national Executive Director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, no arch-conservative by any stretch, in the San Jose Mercury-News:

Some net neutrality advocates argue that the FCC should adopt rules that would insulate Internet applications companies such as Google, Yahoo and Skype from bearing any of the burden of these costs. The result would mean a de facto regressive “broadband tax” on consumers. That would hit non-adopters in the Latino community and elsewhere particularly hard, as considerable data show that such cost-shifting onto consumers would deter adoption.

Net neutrality rules should prevent broadband providers from engaging in anti-competitive behavior, but they should not be commandeered to insulate wealthy Internet applications companies from paying their fair share of the broadband bill.

Translation: Net Neutrality is a transfer from poor people of color to rich people of pallor. And this is no Republican, no conservative saying it. Wilkes went to bat against Senator Cornyn for Justice Sotomayor, yet now he goes to bat against Google against Net Neutrality.

That’s how far out of the mainstream Net Neutrality is. Even left Democrats can’t endorse it. Net Neutrality is a pure payoff to wealthy Internet companies that back Obama, nothing more, nothing less. We must keep the pressure on to defeat it at the FCC.

Government must not be used to enrich Google fatcats at the expense of kids in cities trying to work hard and get ahead. Net Neutrality is un-American.

COMMENTS

  • Alberta

    cause i mean guy on the street hears net neutrality and it doesnt mean anything. We should do what the left does and inject uterusian emotion into the debate. Communist, Socialist Internet at least gets to the guts of the thing, if a tad hyper.

    Although, ill admit, socialist tag to their healthcare bondoogle didnt really help.

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

    This isn’t socialization, yet. This is regulation which will allow later socialization.

    But if I don’t say Net Neutrality, people won’t know what FCC plan I’m talking about.

  • RedBeard

    And they have largely succeeded.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    There, that was easy… mission accomplished… now for lets look for some yummy stimulus money… heck I even have a real zip code (or two) and all that there…

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

    Mission un-accomplished.

    just kidding.

  • JadedByPolitics

    …..

  • RedBeard

    He declared that patents and copyrights should be banned, and that all “that stuff” should be free for the taking. I asked him how he would feel if some guy grabbed his thesis and used it as his own, and he angrily declared that such a thing would clearly be theft. I then asked him to explain the difference between the two scenarios. He couldn’t, of course, and quickly changed the subject to the eye-catching hooters that were just then walking past.

    Geez, I miss college. Nothing had to make sense except hooters and beer. In that order.

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    The Orwellian Net Neutrality

    “Orwellian” fits so well for all things progressive, why not start to take advantage of it?

  • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

    Copyright duration is quickly getting out of hand, along with the horrid patenting of genomes and mathematical formulae. Anyway, the best case against intellectual property is a libertarian one, which means this kid, perhaps without knowing it, has conservative sympathies he doesn’t yet realize.

  • harlan

    It’s no secret that a very large segment of obama support comes from the college ages.

    When are their parents going to act like parents and demand some common sense from their student children in return for unlimited access to the money trough?

    The worst damn thing we ever did in this country was to give eighteen-year-olds the vote. After a lifetime of public school sponsored propaganda, coupled with non-existent parenting, most of these kids are just hopeless…and dangerous.

  • RedBeard

    I have argued against the voting age being dropped ever since it happened. My reason is simple. I have total recall of what a complete ignoramus I was at 18 (liberal ivory tower know-it-all punk) and how much better educated I was at 21 as the real world kicked in.

  • penguin2

    Since the Privacy Act, parents are no longer allowed to be parents of our 18yr. old kids, even though we still are paying the bills, and especially the college tuition and issues involved with the transitional stage from adolescence to young adulthood. Studies have proven that neurologically brain development is still going on to the mid-twenties. This accounts for choices one makes at 19 are not the same that are made at 26. It is also the very good reason, why car insurance rates are much higher for under 21 vs over, and why car rentals are not allowed unless 25 yrs. old!

    That is a big reason why it bothers me, that so much damage can be done to a young person in this day and age, it can ruin them for the rest of their lives, even though they were only 20 when the offense occurred, and I am not talking about the horrendous crimes; but the drug and alcohol ones, as well as other issues. The days when a police officer sent you home to your parents and let the family deal with it, is long gone. Everything involves the government! Guess that is the plan, the Government is to run society.

  • Christopher Underwood

    I know that you’re just addressing the right to vote but don’t you believe that if you can bleed and die for your country that you have a right to vote for the people that represent your interests? If you don’t want people who are 18 to vote then I hope you are also for disallowing them from military service until the reach the “proper” voting age.

    Though I understand the argument that everyone is a mostly different person then when they were 18, most people would also agree that they’re a different person at 40 then they were at 21. No matter where you move the age at which the law recognizes you as an adult you will be able to make the same argument.

    “I can’t believe we give 21 year olds the right to vote! When I was 21, all I did was drink and skip class. What an idiot I was/all 21 year olds are!”

    And instead of writing off my generation as hopeless and dangerous maybe we should consider a concerted campaign to reach those of college age. Though college campuses are often bastions of left-wing thought/indoctrination that does not mean the conservative cause will die with the generation of my parents. To write off my generation as dangerous means you intend to see the death of conservatism with your generation.

    I am only 25 and have been an outspoken conservative since before I cast my first vote (for the 2nd Bush). We exist, if only in small numbers at this point.