Obama's so called "Net Neutrality" was a Big Fat Lie. Not Neutral at all.

Net Neutrality is a horrible law. Look past all the leftwing screaming and the death threats, the end isn’t coming; yes, humans will die, but not because of ending Net Neutrality. The law is flawed, clearly biased; it gives distinct advantage and power to an exclusive segment of the Internet industry, what is called the “edge” providers.  Google, Facebook, Twitter, you get the picture.

Know this; Net Neutrality is not neutral; it is not neutral at all.  It is a reasonable argument that the choice of its name was a tactical lie. And the masses of ignorant Americans, led by a shallow and often times worthless press, lapped it up.

In my informal surveys I find very few people that have a clue what Net Neutrality is all about; most articles I’ve read in the mainstream press are superficial and talk generalities in ways that support the lie of neutrality.  It’s pathetic.

Where to Start

Proponents of Net Neutrality talk about protecting against “throttling” and blocking and censorship. But they stop there, by an large they don’t explain any details, I will.

Blocking and Censorship

First off, I agree, blocking and censorship are big concerns, very big concerns. These are fundamental. Corporations do not have the right to usurp the principles of our country. They do not have the right to censor or control the subjects of open forum content.    … Hear, Hear! Human rights exceed corporate objectives and interests, always.  That’s how I see it.  

Throttling

That said, the throttling issue is way over hyped, Wow, just think a little past the basics here. Why wouldn’t I want the opportunity to trade speed for cost? Why is that so important? It’s not! This is mass propaganda, likely from the leftwing tech giants.  It’s over hyped and incredibly effective brainwashing. To witness such stellar mind control is scary to anyone that uses his or her brain. 

 

Misunderstood and poorly considered by many people (almost everyone I’ve asked). As far s I am concerned, the idea of controlling speed or providing preferential speed from the ISP is not a big concern. It wasn't to people back in 2015 when the rules went into effect either.  So why is it such a big concern now? Brainwashing, that is all.

So let’s get to the details of Net Neutrality, the details that matter.

Who was Governed by Net Neutrality?

The Internet is composed of two principle components the “access point” and the channels to content, called the “edge”. 

The access point is the business of “Internet Service Providers” or “ISPs”.  Large ISP's like Comcast and local service providers like Bend Broadband in Central Oregon, my ISP.

The other component of the Internet is the “edge” companies, where you land when you hit the Internet, Google for instance is my home page, That is the first edge of the internet for me. Twitter, Yahoo, Facebook. These are edge companies too, many others. 

 

As for principles of Net Neutrality Think about this, it’s all over the news. These companies have been known to censor, block, throttle and much worse. They can do so because Net Neutrality rules for the most part do not apply to them, only the ISPs are covered by the Net Neutrality regulations. That is wrong.

There it is the belly of the lie. It might come as a shock to you, after all these companies were such vocal supporters of the law.

They lie, they cheat, they deceive, they manipulate, they use psyops tactics to manage you. What more do the techno corporatist  have to do to get you to stop listening to them?

Think Outside The google ™

This is what is relevant, who is and who is not governed; others will talk about Title Two and the Communications Act of 1934 bla bla. Bla. It is all smoke, irrelevant smoke. The idea that the Internet be governed by laws that originated 85 years ago is fodder for fools. 

The Internet needs to be looked at for what it is, now in todays world with an eye towards tomorrow’s potential. Getting hung up on what laws from the past should apply indicates you’re dealing with the wrong people. We must stop the thinking of the past and reanalyze the methods of the past. 

Future Planning

I believe that the Internet does need to be regulated; but there is no immediate rush, just as there wasn’t anything pressing back in 2015 when Net Neutrality was imposed. A measured reasoned and fair set of rules applied to all would not be detrimental in my opinion. Speed options with competitive pricing would be great too.  

Unfair, unbalanced and patently biased, the old Net Neutrality rules, that is bad, bad for the Internet and for society future itself. 

Regulations must be done in an even handed way. Full transparency is possible today and the society should have access to these discussions. The full light of day will keep the fascists away.  

Internet Perceived As A Threat By Government(s)

Internet Perceived As A Threat By Government(s)

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Anytime people gather to discuss the shortcomings or “over comings” of their governments, those governments feel threatened. 

In the world of the 21^st century, the Internet is akin to a global town hall.  And that makes the Internet a HUGE threat to governments, everywhere.  They know it -- and they hate it.

Enter the UN.

“A gathering of United Nations diplomats overseas has some in the U.S. worried about a potential takeover of the Internet by foreign powers – with others claiming such fears are wildly over hyped.

The obscure branch of the U.N. at issue is the International Telecommunication Union, whose 193 member states include the U.S. and which was convening this week in Geneva. The ostensible purpose of the conference is to seek consensus for an updating of the last set of international telecom regulations, known as ITRs, which were issued in 1988.”  (SOURCE)

Ok.  So … why is this a concern?  Well, let’s go back to the story from Fox News:  “…Robert McDowell, a commissioner on the Federal Communications Commission, has been warning that the conference is a moment of great peril for industrialized and Third World countries alike. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and a subsequent interview with Fox Business, McDowell accused the so-called “BRIC” countries – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – and their allies among developing nations of trying to seize the moment to strengthen international regulation of the Internet. Such a development, McDowell claimed, would imperil the Web’s historic role as an outlet for free expression and economic growth.”

If you are thinking that the statement by the FCC commissioner is really mind-boggling coming, as it is, from a member of an agency of the Obama Regime, then don’t.  Take a breath.  You see, Commissioner McDowell is a George Bush appointee to the FCC.

Telecommunication Union spokesman Gary Fowlie, in an interview with Fox news said:  “(International Telecommunication Union) members do not want heavy-handed regulation,” Fowlie went on to say: “There are no proposals on the table that would impact access to or freedom of the Internet." (SOURCE)

Danny Weitzner, deputy chief technology officer at the White House, is reported to have recently said:  “This multi-stakeholder process -- the process that the Internet community has pioneered in many ways -- I think works based on the fact that people have things they need to do together,” he told the Brookings audience. “It doesn't really work when one people tells someone else what to do. That's kind of the Marx command-and-control model.” (SOURCE)

Look.  It takes no stretch of the imagination to see where the UN is headed with all this. They want to control world wide instant communications between the people of the planet … period.

There was a time, and not so long ago, that in order for there to be a successful revolution or uprising of the people against their government, the rebels absolutely MUST take control of the country’s radio and TV stations. It remains a fact today, that for tinhorn dictators (who still dot the globe) control of broadcast stations and other means of communications -- including the Internet and the print media -- is imperative in order to maintain power over their people.

Just days ago, the world learned that Iran had simply turned off the Internet in that benighted country.  I’m not a technician, so I don’t know how, exactly, you do that, but the mad mullahs of Iran do … and they’ve done it.

Here, in what used to be a free America, we know the government has access to every e-mail we send … not to mention our landline phone calls and our cell phones, as well.  According to Col. Ollie North, the only communications the US government does not read are smoke signals.

The facts of the matter are plain.  It is only a matter of time before there is worldwide regulation of the Internet. The governments of the world, both good and bad, simply cannot allow people all over the globe to communicate with each other at will.  It is far too dangerous to their hold over us. The Internet must be regulated to protect THEM.  It is the same principle as dispersing a crowd of people to avoid a riot. 

I submit that if Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams were alive today, they would be burning the Internet up with their rabble-rousing commentaries.  Just as their fiery tomes led to the revolt against Great Britain by her colonies in America, other commentators around the globe are having similar effects upon THEIR totalitarian governments.  THAT is a THREAT and it cannot be allowed to continue.

Sooner, or later, the Internet will be regulated and governed by a single international entity.  Bet on it.

J. D. Longstreet