After losing their attempt to takeover the internet with the “net neutrality” tactic (which was shot down in court), the FCC is today announcing that they will be regulating the internet. The new tactic is to treat the internet as a public utility, which is how the FCC is able to claim authority over it.
Obviously, the goal here for the FCC is just to get their foot in the door. Exercising complete control of the internet, along with the inevitable taxing of its use, will follow shortly. This is a major move by the socialists and another victory by them toward taking away your 1st Amendment Rights.
Here’s an article that covers the issue, although it doesn’t really cover the significance of this ruling.
Mike, have you read the book “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand?
I wonder whats next on thier agenda? :banghead
Redistribution of wealth from the ‘haves’ to the ‘have nots’ by whatever means possible including healthcare, taxes…oh, wait, that’s all the stuff they’re doing now.
Net neutrality is a good thing. Its intention is to prevent the government sponsored monopolies that provide Internet service from hijacking your connections and redirecting them from what YOU specified to what THEY want you to see.
I generally agree with your limited government views, but in this case, the internet providers have been granted special privileges by the government as monopolies/oligopolies , and as such, need to be severly regulated to insure they serve the public interest. If they want the internet service industry to operate like a free market they need to allow unfettered competition in their service areas.
Significant portions of their infrastructure were constructed with taxpayer dollars and if I paid for it (or much of it) with tax dollars I want to be able to do with it as I please.
Which in laymens terms mean…It doesn’t back up what I am saying at all but if I put a link in the posting it gives me “credibility” :bs
Which in laymens terms mean...It doesn't back up what I am saying at all but if I put a link in the posting it gives me "credibility"
No, which means that the article didn’t do a good job of covering the significance of the ruling - AS I SAID!