Net Neutrality – Another Tool for Republicans Lies

Interesting insight into how Republicans see reality. A Republican spokesperson has come out against the net neutrality proposal claiming that the FCC decision is insulting and nothing more than a government takeover because it restricts unfair business practices that deprive consumers and providers equal and unfettered access to the Internet.

FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski’s recently released draft proposal on net neutrality states the proposal is intended to keep the Internet free of control and manipulation by any public or private group. In short, it will put regulations in place to protect consumers and innovators so the Internet remains a free and open means of communication. Genachowski says that, “The proposed framework will bar unreasonable discrimination of lawful Internet traffic.”

Here we have the GOP claiming the consumer will lose if the proposal passes and the FCC chairman saying it’s passage is in the best interest of the consumer.

These guys are all, regardless of party affiliation, suppose to be looking out for the best interest of all consumers so how can these two opposing views both be accurate?

Simply put, the draft proposes that consumers and innovators have a right to send and receive lawful Internet traffic, and it prohibits blocking of connections, content or devices by any public or private entity. And that no central authority should have the right to pick which ideas or companies win or lose on the Internet, and it should be the role of the marketplace and free market to dictate consumer’s and innovators choices.

To me this sounds like a full on protection of internet access for all consumers.

Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) sees it differently. She claims this proposal is insulting and claims that net neutrality is nothing more than government takeover of the Internet.

Excuse me Ms. Blackburn of Tennessee, but if my access to the internet will be protected from control by any group, please explain to me how this is insulting? Please lay out your views on how this proposal is a government takeover of the internet.

Also, how is it in your warped sense of reality that the Federal Communications Commission has no right to regulate communications?

Your claim that “tepid support of the FCC proposal by Internet Service Providers is in fact proof that no one wants Obama to control the Internet”, is flawed by simple common sense. Allow me to enlighten you madame R-TN, Internet Service Providers make money off of their control of Internet access, namely through the gluttonous concept of tiered pricing. This unabashed scheme to bilk as much money as possible from the very consumers who keep them in business is shameful, and I am trying to be as kind here as I possible can.

No other nation in the world so strangles the innovation and consumer access to the Internet by adhering to this Machiavellian means of control of Freedom of Speech. Internet access should be guaranteed for all people, much the same way in which libraries and news media is.

ISP’s dictate the speed at which the Internet can reach consumers by following the same business model as that used for cable television. The Internet is not cable television. To decide that only the rich can have the greatest access to information, news, entertainment and a forum to voice our opinion is to draw the same hard line of division that King Louis IV maintained which lead to the French Revolution.

This is representative of a growing Republican mantra, when a government agency tasked with protecting consumers makes and enforces regulations; Republicans scream ‘government takeover’ or another Obama power grab. Even though the attempt by government is to enforce protection of free speech, unfettered access and to prevent control and manipulation by any public or private group.

Witnessing their continued blatant corporate protectionist tactics at the cost of consumer protection, I think it’s obvious who Republicans are really looking out for.

Net Neutrality is not government takeover. Nor is it in any way near socialism. It is as much about equal rights for everyone as was the Womens Suffrage Act of 1920, Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The bottom line here is that Republicans hate any regulations that do not favor the wealthy, banks, or corporations, and their deregulation mantra is predictable. It has been Democrats who advocate for consumers and put in place regulations that protect every American, including Republicans.

Blackburn’s lies that Genachowski’s proposals hinder access to the Internet are meant to garner support from voters who have no idea what the proposals mean for consumers.

Education is what is needed for the ultimate in consumer protection.

It is clear that Republicans will go so far as to prevent access to education if it will aid in furthering their lies about regulation as a means to frighten voters.

Please get the word out that Net Neutrality is a step towards better Internet access not an attempt to take it away from us.

Phone companies as censors

So, you think you can say anything you want, any time you want over the internet or through text messaging? Not if AT&T and Verizon has anything to say about it.

Read the fine print of your ‘terms of agreement’ and you will find that either company, among others, can terminate your contract with them anytime they want at their discretion.

It is their equipment and they should have the right to refuse service to anyone.

My objection is their ability to access the content of those private conversations in order to determine if they are politically ‘offensive’ to their beliefs.

These corporations are business entities not political entities. If they want to enforce their political bias on their customers then we customers should be allowed to void our contract with them because we don’t agree with their political views.

Verizon blocked text messages from a national pro-choice group who wanted to send it to their customers.

When they were busted Verizon claimed it was a ‘glitch’ in their software and they felt really bad about it. A glitch? Right. A glitch that singularly prevented a pro-choice group from sending text messages to its customers. I’m not buying it.

In August, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vetter criticized President Bush. They also hid behind a faulty ‘glitch’.

Are these companies telling us that their multi-million dollar, state-of-the-art software is faulty?

Both companies have a history of handing over customer phone records to the National Security Agency. These events were not followed a scapegoat as mundane as a ‘glitch’, they were just flat out denied. As a result of being discovered, they are both pushing the White House for immunity from lawsuits.

The phone companies have placed themselves in a position to determine what we can and cannot say in our supposedly ‘private’ conversations. This is a very dangerous time to for freedom of speech.

Does this smack of Big Brother? You bet it does. Should we worry? Hell yes. Anything that deteriorates our right to privacy or our right to free speech or for that matter any right granted us by the Bill of Rights should be viewed with extreme suspicion.

No communications provider should put themselves in the position to censor or deny any speech we wish to participate in. They should not even have access to the content of our messages.

Network neutrality is an issue that should be supported by everyone or we will soon find ourselves restricted to what communication we can participate in. Also, we may find ourselves giving money to organizations that are practicing politics counter-productive to our own beliefs.

We need to protect our rights to free speech through every forum, including the internet and cell phones. Telecommunications companies are not culpable for what transmissions get sent using their equipment, therefore they should not be worried about what subject matter is transmitted.

One thing I do not understand is that since the very same people that run these companies and sit on their boards do not want their private conversations intercepted or censored, why should they facilitate the governments ability to do it to their own customers?