« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Marsha Blackburn declares war

By: Neil Stevens (Diary)  |  January 19th, 2011 at 02:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, has put out a two pronged announcement of what America needs conservatives to achieve when it comes to the the Internet, new technologies, and the regulation of them all. It’s fun to watch just how strong she’s come out on these critical issues.

First she had a very well-written piece in the Washington Times explaining how the Internet and related tech issues have gone from a “niche in public policy” to being essential “to keep America free and prosperous.” She gives a great overview of the problems with the FCC and Net Neutrality, then goes on to explain how she, Fred Upton, and other Republicans can do something about it. It’s worth a read, or a link, if you ever need a summary of where we stand today.

The big story though came the next day, when she gave the keynote address to the State of the Net conference held by the Congressional Internet Caucus advisory committee. That’s where she drew the line, bright and clear.

The Congressional Internet Caucus is a bipartisan caucus, and the advisory committee is just as diverse. So when Blackburn stood up in front of them and made an uncompromising case for freedom and against the radical regulatory agenda, it was not necessarily a friendly venue. She did it anyway. She spoke not only of the bipartisan consensus in Congress against the radicals like (Advisory Committee member) Free Press…

The FCC thought they were pushing into a regulatory vacuum last month when they unveiled their net neutrality rules. They may find soon that they stumbled into a Congressional hurricane. No one, Republican or Democrat, Congressman or Commissioner, believes that these new regulations are also the final word. They are the first draft many regulations to come. And as the rules are revised and revised and revised, they create instability, unpredictability- the greatest of all disincentives to investment.

…but Blackburn also emphasized what conservatives ought to remember in this and the next fight, and the one after that:

Beginning with the coming repeal of the FCC overreach, Conservatives should apply our philosophy to the broader arena of tech policy. We must do so in the spirit of our classic defense of free markets and property rights while guarding against needless regulation and federal intervention.

Blackburn leaves no room for doubt. She wants to repeal the FCC’s Net Neutrality power grab. She wants to stand for freedom and property against expanding government. For that, she deserves our support and encouragement.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • freemanja1991

    In congresswoman Blackburn’s army?

  • zollistar

    …is something not properly understood. How gratifying to hear this clarion call for free markets and property rights and an insistence that the Internet be left free of the heavy hand of foolish regulation and intervention.

    I’m with you, freemaja: Where do I enlist?!

  • freemanja1991

    then use Paul Ryan to cut the at war agencies completely out of the budget? EPA, FCC, HHS.

  • forrest

    to primary Bob Corker.

    Pull The Cork!

  • keven

    Speaking of media balance and what to do about it, what about trying a new D-Day

    For me, the media is a bigger long term concern then the Democrats are. The Democrats can be voted out as we saw recently. But the media can’t. And its the media that give the Democrats their power. They elected Obama. The last 3 years the media has stopped even trying to be fair and they are getting worse. How much farther will they go?

    I remember McCain saying you don’t fight with those that buy ink by the barrell. Republicans all believe the media is bias. They simply are afraid the media will use their Alinsky tactics on them and destroy them. Politicians are about survival. They are afraid to be the first one.

    So I have a plan. Call it M-Day. First, have the conservative movement and blogosphere convince the Republican establishment that this needs to end for the betterment of the Republican party and the country. Its in the best interest of even the Republican establishment. Convince the party to gather all the evidence on the subject of media propaganda. I personally could right a 100 page diatribe on the subject. Brent Bozell could write a 1000 page book. There could end up being 10,000 plus FACTS on the topic. Polls, studies, antidotal evidence, etc.

    Then the Republican establishment leaders[Rove-Gillespie-Boehner, whoever the secret powers that be are] go to ALL the Republican presidential canidates about 5 months from now and convince them all to grow some cojones. And during the first debate, when the first person who gets a bias question, to have him hijack the question and go nuclear on the media. Not a “the media is a touch biased’ comment. No, but instead “the media are a propagandist machine” rant. Then let loose with the facts that he has been given to him. Then when the next canidate is asked a seperate question, have him revert back to the last topic, media bias. And have him give more facts and have him talk about it in even more extreme terms. And again and again and again and again. So that they all do it all at once. There is strength and courage in numbers. Storm the beaches. Then after the debate have the Republicans and conservatives who will be on TV to talk about the debate ready to talk about what just happened with even more facts. These are the paratroopers. Then have lots of effective Repulicans to come in to talk on TV in the days after. The reinforcements.

    Prepare it all in the days leading up to the debate. Even if the media heres rumors about this it doesn’t matter, it will still work. It will be a cluster bomb of facts and truth. The truth shall set the Republicans free. Lets Alinsky the media. What can they say? Oh, that whiny Republican party? Even the Democrats will be put into a corner. Our ammunition on this topic is too great.

    Would all Republicans say that the media is bias? My prediction is that if we can convince the leaders like Boehner and the Bushies and the Rombots that its good for them, I predict even the Maine Twins will be peer pressured into admitting the truth. Because its the truth for gods sake. And trust me establishment Republicans, you are next in line to be attacked by the media.

    If done properly there would only be one casualty, the media. And if not taken up by the Republican establishment, then have the conservative movement do it on their own. Every conservative blog devote a day to it. Every conservative columnist. Have talk radio talk about it on the same day. Have every talking head conservative[what few there are] hijack TV conversations and talk about it. And hopefully have every conservative politician make a speach about it. ALL on the same day. It still might be enough to create a conversation by the media end the madness.

    However, try to get the establishment on board first.

  • freemanja1991

    Heard Hank Williams Jr. wants to.

  • bobojake

    You don’t have to be a resident of Tenn to let them know how you feel. They Thanked me for the call.

  • mijamu

    Look at Netflix as the best current example. They are running rings around existing media giants in the Internet streaming business. They have a successful business model, they are able to do it while charging less than other companies and they are profiting. Isn’t that the definition of free market capitalism?

    The FCC decision is a joke. Especially with the NBCU/Comcast merger. It’s only a matter of time before Comcast decides to (1) start charging it’s users for netflix access (2) block netflix (3) throttle the netflix streams down because they are “clogging the tubes” or something. When the real reason is because they either want to force people to use their own streaming service (anti-competitive, anti free market) or they want to artificially inflate the value (used to be called price fixing or gouging) of NBC’s content (also anti free market) or both.

    This is all about control of video streams on the Internet. Old media companies want a traditional model where they control who provides what content and customers must come to them (and pay) for access to that content (think every content medium ever, until the Invention of the Internet).

    It’s probably already too late with the current FCC rules opening the door for major ISPs to start gobbling up content companies (again, see Comcast/NBC).

    The truth is the Internet was a content neutral network, until now. In that sense, the FCC DID step into a regulatory vacuum. The new FCC rules only provide cover for the big players to do what they wanted to all along but were afraid of public backlash.

    Because of these new rules, media giants don’t have to compete with Netflix, they can just squeeze them out of the market with arbitrary fees (because they now control the pipes as well as the content). How is supporting that a pro-free market position?

    Ironically, I support repeal of the new FCC rules, but only if it means moving the Internet back to a non-discriminatory network and keeping it that way.

    That is the only TRUE competitive free market solution.

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

    Take your Free Press talking points down the street, kid. The adults are talking.

  • Finrod

    “Big Business is going to screw up the Internet Any Day Now, so we have to make sure the government screws it up first!”

    Yeah. That trick didn’t work with global warming either.

  • http://www.buckforcolorado.com bjwilson83

    “go to ALL the Republican presidential candidates about 5 months from now and convince them all to grow some cojones”

    Unfortunately, that’s never going to happen. Their likely response from the first person who brought up media bias would be to throw them to the lions and defend the media. One less primary rival to deal with.

  • Raven

    if nothing else.

  • keven

    Thats true if its not pre-planned by the entire party. And to make sure its not a setup of some sort, have the least important, least controversal or least likely contender do it first. Maybe somebody like Tim Pawlenty

  • runner12

    the Dems on the House floor regarding their false CBO numbers and now Blackburn is taking on the FCC! So far I am loving our newly elected Representatives. I hope they keep it up!

  • rickbull

    You can volunteer for the Redstate Army. They don’t call us the volunteer state for nothing! All the true conservatives here are volunteers in Marsha’s army.

    With the exception of two blue-dogs (Cooper in Nashville and Cohen in Memphis), our entire Washington leadership is Conservative Republican–and we like it that way!

  • freemanja1991

    exactly do you mean?

  • rickbull

    When any conservative candidate or pundit is speaking to a reporter or interviewer, the first ambush question will be the last: the conservative should, without saying a word, take off the microphone, stand up and walk out the door. That’s what Sarah Palin should have done when Katie Kuran asked her what newspapers she read–Katie would not have dared to ask that question of Biden or The One. How dare her ask it of Palin!.

    BTW: the ink by the barrel quote was from Twain, I believe. Clinton & McCain purloined it.

  • davesinsanantonio

    the power of the free market. The solution is to deprive them of money. Stop buying their newspapers and magazines, stop viewing their channels. Their TV revenues come from advertisers who want to sell their product. If fewer people are watching, they sell fewer products. So, stop watching and the advertisers will stop giving them dollars. If they have fewer dollars, they can hire fewer leftist flacks to twist the news or to host leftist talk shows. Eventually even George Soreass will tire of throwing money down a less effective rat hole. End of problem The same principles apply to papers and magazines. Starve the beasts and they can do less harm.
    PS Don’t even watch the Sunday pundit shows to “see what the opposition is saying”. We shouldn’t care what they are saying! It is all lies or spin anyway. Let one or two pundit groups on our side act as watchdogs and tell us what they said, but stop providing the Nielsen ratings that make them look more important and influential than they are. Stop giving them numbers and eventually they will go away. Or, they will become so irrelevant that even Soreass will give up on them.
    Also, don’t watch the so-called popular shows on the leftist channels either. They take their advertising revenues from those shows to subsidize the “news” programming. Starve them into submission. You can do without Dancing with Desperate Surviving American Idols for a few seasons to get rid of the lying attacks about this great country from so-called news programs.

  • mosander

    I’m beginning to feel hopeful that we are gaining. The majority of Americans are beginning the journey back to freedom! Defund Cass Sunstein!

  • rivahmitch

    “This is all about control of video streams on the Internet. Old media companies want a traditional model where they control who provides what content and customers must come to them (and pay) for access to that content (think every content medium ever, until the Invention of the Internet).”

    You’re right about “old media” companies and their desires but you’re missing the larger issues:

    The original purpose of copyright law was to protect the creators ability to benefit from his creation. Changes over the last two decades, however, have moved the rewards from the creator to the publisher. In the electronic environment, the large ISP feels that it becomes the publisher and the issue is one of the distribution of spoils. He who controls the pipes (rather than the press) wants his piece of that which he didn’t earn. Hence,content “silos” and A&Ms between media companies and ISPs as a means of controlling revenue are obvious. This is a bad deal for both the real producers and the end consumers that will be imposed, like the unrealistic extension of copyright laws, because Big government prefers to deal with Big companies rather than individuals. That’s not going to change.

    “The truth is the Internet was a content neutral network, until now. In that sense, the FCC DID step into a regulatory vacuum. The new FCC rules only provide cover for the big players to do what they wanted to all along but were afraid of public backlash.”

    Only partially, it also allows bureaucrats to decide which duopoly (local) or oligopoly (national) “big players” will be the winners.

    “Because of these new rules, media giants don?t have to compete with Netflix, they can just squeeze them out of the market with arbitrary fees (because they now control the pipes as well as the content). How is supporting that a pro-free market position?”

    They don’t have to “squeeze them out” just force them to “share their wealth”. (Isn’t that the PC phraseology these days?)

    The larger issue here, however, is not the value/rewards distribution of intellectual property (whether text or video) but the control of all content. Personally, I’d rather have the various “big players” contending to be my service/content provider than have the government in total control of the service/content which I can receive. Government control over content flow, IMHO, is just the first baby step toward scrapping most of the 1st Amendment (think Speech, the press, and (virtual) assembly. That’s why these bast*@%ds are dangerous and must be stopped.

  • Raven

    Can you imagine?

    It would be quite interesting, even if it turned out to be nothing else we liked.

  • mvjim

    My problem with Rep. Blackburn’s essay in Monday’s Times was that she never explains what Net Neutrality is or what is wrong with it. When I researched this I discovered: there is no problem! The FCC merely voted to retain the status quo! Hence, we are making a tempest in a teapot, or worse. If this is not the case, Erick and Rep. Blackburn need to make a much better case of what is wrong.

  • sharonmcp
  • edintexas

    Various posters, including Eric, have made the “better case” many times before. I know you are a “newbie” so perhaps, in your research, you failed to find those items. Is it a “tempest in a teapot” to be against a federal regulatory commission vote to impose a regulation when the US Supreme Court has already held the FCC does not have the power to enact any regulations in that area? Put in shorter terms, isn’t it appropriate to oppose a federal agency doing what the Supreme Court held the agency could not do?

  • edintexas

    I don’t know if it was Freudian slip, intentional, or simply a typo – but I love the mental image brought on by Katie Koran (Kuran).

  • edintexas

    The newspapers are headed the way of the Dodo. Broadcast TV national news is a profit loss for the networks. I doubt I’d watch the “popular shows” on broadcast networks, even if there weren’t any good movies on the satellite.

  • Gmac

    quite lively knowing some of his proclivities.

    The best thing would be that there was one less RINO in office and in my book that’s always a good thing.

  • givemefreedom

    She sure is a breath of fresh air. The more I see and hear from conservative females the more I like where We the People are headed.

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

    Just go to the Google custom search bar at the top of the page and type in Tech at Night. He lays out the case against it pretty well in that series.

  • len_kc

    Look back at any/all government regulations; they ALL start out as innocuous little fuzz balls, and then are grown into the overreaching monster they were intended to be. Remember any program that isn’t broken that the feds want to fix is a breeding ground for tyranny!

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

    First off, I’m not Erick.

    Second, all you’re doing is spreading radical socialist talking points.

    Go away. We don’t want your astroturf, Free Press.

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

    He’s just a lefty sobbing over the FCC finally giving in on the NBC Universal/Comcast deal. See Tech at Night from last night for more.

  • rightwingmom52

    Look what happened to Lincoln Davis (my hometown district). Nobody expected that landslide, So proud of Blackburn and TN.

  • earlgrey

    I don’t know how to get rid of Cohen, but I thnk he is a great candidate to be the next Alan Grayson.

    Try to check Cohen trying to weasel his way through an Anderson Cooper interview on CNN’s website. It is a nice palate cleanser.

  • rightwingmom52

    after Davis ran a bunch of attack ads against Dr. D (not my first choice, but I contributed anyway). Nobody really thought a doctor with a foreign (French at that) sounding name would beat a blue-dog Dem in that district. Davis blamed “outside interests” for his loss, but folks kept pointing out that he voted with Pelosi about 80% of the time and that didn’t sit well with the voters. One of his final comments after the loss was very telling. Davis said he did all he could to help the 4th District. Asked if he?s concerned about the future, Davis said, ?I?m not concerned. I?m not their congressman anymore.?

  • earlgrey

    Nice public servant you had there.

    What does this mean for the long term prospects of democrats in midwestern and southern states. I mean they have been decimated and shown to be so awful. I think we need to be extra wary of progressives infiltrating Repubican ranks because D is going to be a loser in at least a few districts fon the next couple of elections at least.

  • myron_j_poltroonian

    “Bachman-Palin Overdrive – 2012″ “Ann Coulter – Attorney General”

  • bluemosque

    The problem is that the left/progressives/liberals make their deceptive moves incrementally. That is what has happened to America–we have been asleep with every incremental step that the left took and we didn’t react. Now, we have to be more alert and careful, monitoring every move they make. Look what Harry Reid did with the Dream Act—slipped it into a bill that was totally unrelated to immigration.The smoke-and-mirrors M.O., distract, bait-and-switch are only some of the deception they foist on WE THE PEOPLE. We ought to stay awake and be vigilant.

  • eburkedisciple

    Go Blackburn! At last some of that all to uncommon ‘common’ sense.

    Looking forward to smaller and better things from Blackburn, Rubio, Ryan, etc.

  • eburkedisciple

    I think, perhaps, that women see the future more clearly because they are tied closer to children, our real future. They understand that our children will suffer the most under socialism and the culture of death that is being promoted by the left – the weakest always do.

  • eburkedisciple

    I am a right wingnut and even I hope for a kinder gentler conservatism that this would produce. You have to win the hearts and minds if you are going to change the behavior. Love their convictions but we need some who can put a better face on them.

  • rickbull

    I don’t make typos. That was VERY intentional.
    And yes, Kuran is a legitimate, alternate spelling.
    Glad you liked it.

  • mijamu

    I’m not a kid or a lefty. I am a 30 year old Republican IT Manager who agrees with positions stated at redstate.com. I just wanted to speak up because I think the Republican position on this single issue should be reassessed (I know how cliche that sounds).

    Conservatives (myself included) think Government interference is more dangerous, but Liberals have decided they would rather have government step in (big shocker) in order to stop ISPs from interfering.

    I don’t want to hear Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem. ISPs can’t wait to change the Internet.

    Here’s why:
    Data delivery (ISP) is slowly becoming a utility like electricity or water. When that happens there is little room for the provider to grow and profit (besides growing the user base). ISPs don’t want that. They don’t like the direction their industry is going and have decided to change the Internet into something different.

    In the near future, you will no longer pay for generic Internet access. You will pay for specific Internet delivered services and content. This gives the control over what you do on the Internet to your ISP (which happens to partner with or own certain services and content).

    You are right that we should be vigilant. Because allowing Government controlling of Internet content and services is way more dangerous. But we should be just as vigilant in preventing ISPs from picking and choosing services (by throttling or blocking competitors) which are most beneficial to them.

    The Internet became what it is today by being (as much as possible) content neutral. And I believe the average person is overwhelmingly supportive of keeping the Internet in it’s current form.

    If you are opposed to Net Neutrality, I would like to know; what benefit will you receive by giving control of content and services to your ISP? Until I hear a viable answer to that question, I will not be convinced that changing the Internet is a good thing.

    Let me restate, it is really the ISPs who are driving this desire to change the Internet! Democrats are using the same tool they use for everything, government regulation (via FCC) to block it. And Republicans are (rightfully) trying to fight that. But repealing the FCC ruling only goes half way. It does not address the original problem of ISPs changing the Internet.

    To me, net neutrality means preventing BOTH ISPs AND GOVERNMENTS from interfering with the Internet. I support Marsha Blackburn fighting Government interference, but she doesn’t even address the problem of ISP interference.

    You can’t gloss over the problem by saying ISPs simply want to “contend” to be your service/content provider. An ISP IS ALREADY your service provider (that’s what the ISP acronym means). What they want is to become something VERY VERY different. And as a technology professional, it is scary and sad what will become of the Internet if we just let it happen. In this case, the lesser of two evils is still too evil for me to be comfortable with.