The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions." --American Statesman Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

Friday, February 13, 2015

Net neutrality?...Really? from the most transparent administration in American History.

   My apologies to my readers whom head to my corner of the internet when you are bored and I am the last stop before surfing the bowels of the net.

    I have a post I want to work on.  I will post my standard Monday Music next Monday, it will be "Thriller".  There is a lot of material with that one and I guess it is fitting that it will be a long one.

    But I digress;
    I have taken my laptop 2 days in a row to work to try to finish this post, and I am now Friday night at the kitchen table working on it.    All I can say is that I have been extremely busy with overtime, and that is a good thing$$$$$ and basketball stuff and Boy Scout stuff and Church group stuff.

     I have heard that the Obama administration wants to propose a "net neutrality" protection act.  In the interest of "fairness" they want to attach the Internet to the  FCC and reclassify the internet as a "utility" and regulate it in the "public Interest".  This is the same group that tried to put "Truth Czars" in the news room to screen for content.......

..Think about that for a moment....Remember the same people that proposed the truth czars in the news room, are the same people that are pushing "Net Neutrality".  They want to regulate the last bastion of freedom that is the internet, they want to screen the content and the websites....if you are a "free Speech" advocate...think of the ramifications of the government checking the information available...All the information that is critical of "dear leader" and his minions will be buried.  they will also enact the "Fairness doctrine", the fervent hope  of leftist in the United States...they have been trying to muzzle talk radio since the early 90's because the news and information presented there isn't pushed through the media conglomerates that basically are teleprompters for the Democratic National Committee whom they receive their talking points.
The internet is the same way,  it is the only for the most part that is not regulated, I remember a few years ago....15 I think.....If you had a 56K modem, you were highspeed, now you can watch movies through your computers, I am talking megs of data per minute....Such things were undreamed of a few years ago.  YouTube, netflix and other internet services have changed the way we do business.  Now imagine this if it was heavily regulated like the "Ma' Bells" was in the 70's and early 80's.  Very slow......Remember this?
  For many years, this was the standard of communications.....and if you had the pushbutton version....You really were ahead of the power curve.  When "Ma Bell" was broken up in 1984 and all the smaller telephones companies had to start competing for the customers, innovation finally started, we quickly went to bag phones and pagers and the early analog cell phones to the smart phones of today.  this wouldn't have been possible if the phone/communications system is operated as a monopoly under the auspices of FEDGOV.  Bureaucrats despise changes....it disturbs their orderly little world.  And if the government can control the internet, they can in the name of "public good" censure content and if there is anything bad that the government doesn't approve of....guess what...nobody will find out.   Right now on the internet, you can find out news and other things quickly.  Right now we have the MSM having a love affair with the Obama regime, if you had to rely on them for news, you would find the news very favorable to "Dear Leader" and his cronies. 

    I also will tie this is
While most of us will agree that several outlets are clearly propaganda for the current regime, there is some visible free press demonstrated. Sharyl Attkisson at CBS comes to mind.
Ajit Pai, commissioner at the FCC, recently wrote that while different new organizations cover different news they believe to be important and may give their particular spin on it, "everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories."
Pai went on to report at the Wall Street Journal:
Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about "the process by which stories are selected" and how often stations cover "critical information needs," along with "perceived station bias" and "perceived responsiveness to underserved populations."

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: "Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?" Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.
In other words, it's about "pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories." However, it's not just about covering certain stories, but the way in which they are covered, ie. Propaganda.
The ACLJ's Matthew Clark agrees. "That's right, the Obama Administration has developed a formula of what it believes the free press should cover, and it is going to send government monitors into newsrooms across America to stand over the shoulders of the press as they make editorial decisions," he wrote.However, that is not the only issue. While newsrooms are spoken of, the undeniable road this will go on is to newspapers and inevitably bloggers will be affected.


  1. This is not going to end well for us... Just sayin...

  2. This is not going to end well for us... Just sayin...