Uncategorized

Barack Obama Wants Expanded Internet Regulation

“IF YOU LIKE YOUR INTERNET …” By FITSNEWS || Less than a week after his party got beaten down in the midterm elections, U.S. president Barack Obama ramped up his tone-deafness – urging fresh government restrictions on the internet. All in the name of protecting the internet, of course ……

“IF YOU LIKE YOUR INTERNET …”

By FITSNEWS || Less than a week after his party got beaten down in the midterm elections, U.S. president Barack Obama ramped up his tone-deafness – urging fresh government restrictions on the internet.

All in the name of protecting the internet, of course …

“An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life,” Obama said. “By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.”

Exactly … no thanks to government, though.

Rather than leave well enough alone, though, Obama wants the government to impose its definition of “net neutrality” on service providers – implementing “the strongest possible rules” in an effort to preserve and promote “an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it.”

Translation?  The government is here to “fix” the only thing left in America that isn’t broken.

What could possibly go wrong, right?

We wrote on “net neutrality” back in 2010 – the last time Obama tried (unsuccessfully) to foist it on the web.

“The ‘danger’ that government is seeking to address is illusory, in our estimation,” we wrote.  ” Sure, there’s a chance that service providers might try to block certain content or platforms offered by competitors, but isn’t that what competition is all about?  And wouldn’t companies that try to block certain content or platforms face severe reprisals from the marketplace?

“We’ll be the first to admit that we’re not experts on this subject, but at first glance it seems like another excuse for government to stick it’s nose someplace it doesn’t belong … which is bad,” we concluded.

More recently, Michael Krieger of the website Liberty Blitzkrieg laid bare the real reason for government’s support of “net neutrality.”

“This is truly the American way of censorship,” he wrote. “Figure out how those with the deepest pockets can smother the free speech of those with little or no voice on the one medium in which information flow is still treated equally. The nightmare scenario here would be that status quo companies use their funds to price out everyone else. It would kill innovation on the web before it starts. It’s just another example of the status quo attempting to build a moat around itself that we have already seen in so many other areas of the economy.

“The internet really is the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the U.S. economy and this proposal could put that at serious risk,” Krieger concluded.

Indeed …

Government already monitors (unconstitutionally we might add) everything Americans consume on the internet … now it wants to take the Orwellian impulse one step further.

We can’t let that happen …

The internet is everything Obama says it is, “one of the greatest gifts our economy and society has ever known” – which is exactly why he should stay a million miles away from it.

***

Related posts

Uncategorized

Escaping Your Timeshare Contract Safely & Effectively

FITSForum
Uncategorized

Spy Apps: Balancing Privacy And Practicality

FITSForum
Murdaughs

Buster Murdaugh Files Defamation Lawsuit

Callie Lyons

135 comments

tomstickler November 10, 2014 at 11:49 am

Fits was wrong on net neutrality in 2010, and remains wrong today.

Reply
The Colonel November 10, 2014 at 11:50 am

How so?

Reply
tomstickler November 10, 2014 at 11:52 am

Sorry to have edited while you were asking.

Reply
The Colonel November 10, 2014 at 12:04 pm

Didn’t answer how he’s wrong on suggesting that “Net Neutrality” legislation is a bad idea (it is by the way)

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 10, 2014 at 12:13 pm

He’s wrong because net neutrality allows all websites to be accessed equally. Once you start getting into filtering internet results based on how much they pay to the providers like Comcast or TWC, or ATT, then many websites, like this one, will take forever to load or not load at all.

Net neutrality? Or more gov't? November 10, 2014 at 12:16 pm

So is that happening now?

Everyone is talking about “freeing the internet”, but I have yet to come across an unfree portion of it.

Smirks November 10, 2014 at 12:38 pm

So is that happening now?

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_25723988/cogent-ceo-comcast-purposefully-slowed-down-netflix-streaming

This would be even worse if Comcast and TWC were allowed to merge, creating an entity with an even larger market share.

Net neutrality? Or more gov't November 10, 2014 at 1:01 pm

Part of the problem is that Comcast & TWC were gov’t granted monopolies to start…but aside from that given time they would just bleed more customers that were Netflix users…especially as wireless speed continues to ramp up.

I don’t expect you to have faith in the free market, but remember every gov’t regulation passed gives them far more control over people long term that the short term antics of loser gov’t connected corporations.

Jackie Chiles November 10, 2014 at 1:34 pm

I’m not sure if you’re being serious or not.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 8:34 am

(thinks night will never come because it isn’t dark now)

Net neutrality? Or more gov't? November 11, 2014 at 9:58 am

Yea, that’s right. Let’s pass laws for what COULD happen. We’ll call it “legislative paranoia policy”. It fits well with Bush’s(now the country) preemptive strike policy as well.

“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

Fear drives everything in the country now a days, so you’re not out of step.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 10:07 am

Explain what liberty the citizens are giving up by the feds requiring Comcast to send all internet data equally.

Net neutrality? Or more gov't? November 11, 2014 at 11:01 am

“Explain what liberty the citizens are giving up by the feds requiring Comcast to send all internet data equally.”

And who is going to oversee this regulation of the internet?

The FCC.

And what does the FCC regulate, aside from frequency spectrum?

Speech. Would you like to open the door to them to control what speech is or is not acceptable?

I’ll take the possibility of a $70/month internet bill over more regulation of what is “acceptable” opinion by our master in DC thank you.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 11:29 am

Wait, so you’re worried that the FCC by passing a regulation requiring telecom providers to send all data equally (something the FCC has the power to do) will literally result in the exact opposite of that the regulation says?

Just so I understand, you’re criticizing people for acting out of fear because they express the very real possibility of telecom providers limiting your internet access in the same manner they do with your television service in order to make a buck.

Telecom providers are already squeezing netflix for additional payments to have its services delivered in a way that makes it usable. You claim people being worried about that are uneducated, fearful people who are acting out of fear rather than the preservation of their liberty.

But you, the non-fearful, intelligent person that you are, say that an FCC regulation requiring all data to be transmitted equally will literally result in the FCC hiring thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of employees to, contrary to the constitution, screen and approve or disapprove all speech on the internet in the same manner that the Communist Chinese government does?

Nothing in net neutrality regulations contains anything about the government approving “acceptable” speech. You create a false choice between liberty and net neutrality by inventing a straw man FCC that neither has the manpower, authority, nor desire to screen the entire internet for acceptable speech.

Net neutrality? Or more gov't? November 11, 2014 at 1:05 pm

“Nothing in net neutrality regulations contains anything about the government approving “acceptable” speech. ”

You wrote all that, but you could have condensed it down to the above.

So in answer to your question, yes, I am concerned, rightfully so, that once you open the door to FCC regulation it is an incredibly small leap to assume they will become a weapon(like the IRS) to stifle free speech.

Are you absolutely oblivious to their threats of “equal airtime” for differing political views on radio stations by the FCC?

Seriously, are you that naive to think that won’t happen if you allow them control of the internet?

You’re worried about a $70 internet bill instead of keeping the gov’ts nose out of what is said where? Right now the FCC has no control over the internet. I want to keep it that way. I’ll happily pay more to keep it that way.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm

You’ve been listening to Glenn Beck too much bro. The FCC itself says it has no such authority over a broadcast station’s programming choices. http://bradblog.com/Docs/FCC_ZappleDoctrineRuling_050814.pdf

You’re literally trading away the protections of your first amendment rights, created by the Founding Fathers and enforced for over 200 years through the U.S. court system in favor of a company that can’t even tell you if it’s own employee will be at your house within 4 hours or guarantee you that you will receive what you pay for.

Net neutraility? Or more gov't November 11, 2014 at 2:30 pm

“You’re literally trading away the protections of your first amendment rights, ”

I think you got it wrong bro. Time will tell.

They already have control over what is broadcast over the TV airwaves via obscenity laws. It wasn’t too long ago they had control over the distribution of viewpoints.

Do you think gov’t gives up once it expresses a desire to control something?

No. They just go back after it again and again, repacking, re-angling, etc. until they’ve convinced people that it’s in their best interests. Obamacare wasn’t an anomaly, it was simply execution of governance as it’s been for the last 100 years on a larger scale.

They already expressed an interest, and they have precedent:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

The debate swings back and forth, generationally. You are a fool to let them in the door over the possibility of a larger internet bill to “fix” something that isn’t currently a problem.

truthmonger November 11, 2014 at 12:55 pm

Actually, braindead, it would mean that sites (like FITS or FOX) would have the ability to force internet providers to allow the same access to their sites as the provider would allow to sites like CNN or DU. How is that bad???

Net neutrality? Or more gov't? November 11, 2014 at 1:07 pm

Read the above donut eater, and re-think.

truthmonger November 11, 2014 at 12:51 pm

So you’ve never experienced throttling while surfing/ streaming? Lucky.

The Colonel November 10, 2014 at 3:15 pm

Okay let me make sure I understand your argument basically, it’s this:
If you like your website you can have your website

and

You have to pass the bill to see what’s in it. Yes?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/obama-urges-fcc-to-seize-sweeping-new-internet-powers-to-enact-net-neutrality-20141110

Jackie Chiles November 10, 2014 at 4:36 pm

Enjoy paying $79.00 a month for the “espn website package” that gives you access to Espn Websites and Netflix, all at blazing fast speeds of 10-15 mbps while packages of other random websites are $5.99 per 10.

Really? November 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm

It seems like fear drives a lot of decisions. Is this actually happening any where?

9" November 11, 2014 at 4:22 am

Yes,sir.In some states,’net neutrality’,means you can only get bisexual porn.

Jackie and The Colonel have Ebola.Their immune systems were weakened by fear.

FastEddy23 November 10, 2014 at 9:51 pm

As of this writing, Korea has 100 Mbps WiFi to every pad, computer and cellphone in the entire country for $9 bucks a month … and the providers are working to bring the costs down even further.

lulz November 11, 2014 at 2:34 pm

“Enjoy paying $79.00 a month for the “espn website package”

(says the successful attorney who’s worried about $80/month impacting his finances)

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 2:37 pm

(wonders why he’s poor all the time)

I like paved roads November 10, 2014 at 8:00 pm

I can’t wait for government to fix the internets.

Reply
FastEddy23 November 10, 2014 at 9:45 pm

Sorry, but DARPA had very little to do with the evolution of the Internet. For the dial-up 300 baud telephone network that interconnected several large US university computer systems, we will thank that minor wing of the vast military/industrial complex.

For the www, the TCP Internet Protocol, the packet switching routers, switches and gateways, we have the wild-hat hackers in the basements of those universities who glued all of the various parts together to thank. … And several really sharp and levelheaded guys in Switzerland who nominated the best of the breeds as “worthy” …

Heavens, DARPA never really understood what Admiral Grace Hopper was all about … and still don’t. …. Obama? … LOL!

Reply
west_rhino November 11, 2014 at 9:24 am

Yeah. Al Gore invented it, with his daddy’s filthy riches from Occidental Petroleum payola…

Reply
diamond jim:elections have con November 11, 2014 at 9:49 am

Nice!!!

Reply
GrandTango November 10, 2014 at 12:05 pm

If Obama is controlling the web, FITS will go right to the top of any search list, while SCPSD will be “Karl”-ed. (see Election Day evening 2014)

They’ll exalt their own, and punish voices against the Ds, not matter how true (like SCPSD.)

Reply
Buz Martin November 10, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Yeah, I’m sure Obama is sitting in the White House every day thinking up ways to get FITS top Google rankings.

Holy shit, man, do you have no concept of what a total ass you make of yourself, on a regular basis, with such idiotic assertions?

Reply
diamond jim:elections have con November 10, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Hey Boz. Tomsticler has reported Rick Perry is visiting MB and the Myrtle Beach Area Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday.

Com on now-what bizzaro, conspiratorial theory you got cooked up?

Is Perry delivering ‘envelopes’ of money to Tom Rice OR will you attend and try and execute a ‘citizens arrest’ on Perry for leaving the state of Texas-damn don’t stand up and ask Mayor Rhodes to resign AGAIN!!!

Oh my!!!! Is Elmer Fudd in the house!!!

Reply
Buz Martin November 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Hum.

Reply
Buz Martin November 10, 2014 at 1:05 pm

Ho.

Reply
Smirks November 10, 2014 at 2:21 pm

Why is Sandi obsessed with you? You said she’s some troll from somewhere else or something?

Buz Martin November 11, 2014 at 5:42 am

pogo from The SNOB (Sun News Opinion Blog), where he basically harassed everybody — whether right, left or in-between — for three years before its demise. “pogo” being his most common ID, but he used several others from time to time. He’s actually used “pogo” a few times on here, too.

diamond jim:elections have con November 11, 2014 at 7:09 am

lol…fuck you…the ‘pogo’ fantasy world you have created in your pathetic and sic mind is just another example of your sociopathic spiral into irrelevance.

I used to visit the SNOB occasionally-until you apparently scared the shit out of the TSN – I still believe Dan Golden (SNOB editor) moved his family to Nebraska to get the fuck away from you.Want me to name the 5 REGULAR bloggers( 2 of them successful business owners and one local author, now deceased,among them) from that forum that threatened to sue you for posting slanderous lies about them, their families and their businesses? That doesn’t even include other threats from local politicians and public servants that have threatened such legal action.

You are the one obsessed. Your obsession with trying to destroy and defame those you have differences with is legendary.

Probably best you and I don’t address each other anymore on Fits. You are awfully thin skinned and frankly I feel dirty for allowing myself to be pulled into the gutter by a worthless,deranged POS like you.

Carry on.

,

Buz Martin November 11, 2014 at 9:18 am

So. Ya gonna “quit” FITS now in a snit, pogo, the way you did 1,000 times on The SNOB, only to return in another trollish persona, or two, or three? On to your game, and making sure everyone else is too.

btw, when you mention the “2 successful business owners”, I can think of 1 of them, for sure. But is the other one supposed to be the illustrious “developer” and voting machine pioneer (he really was) who now resides in a seedy motel in Garden City within stumbling distance of the only bar in the area that still lets him in? The same one who melted down completely on the 4th of July and finally got caught driving drunk (a habitual action YOU accused him of doing before I ever did), without a licence, compounding that with a hit and run charge in addition to vandalism of police and FD alarm boxes? The one with a rap sheet almost as long as your line of bullshit, in both Horry and Georgetown Counties? THAT successful businessman?

Nobody in MB will give that dude the time of day now. The ranks of those guys is thinning fast, pogo. This is what I mean when I say you don’t keep up.

You and Big T were made for each other. Do you let him be on top all the time, or do you switch places every now and then?

diamond jim:elections have con November 11, 2014 at 9:43 am

Quit?Na and i have no idea about what you are babbling about. In my short time on the SNOB (I guess the last few months before it ended(?) and you destroyed it-I recall probably the most successful business owner in Murrels Inlet threatening to sue you( the one where you walked out on your bar tab), one business owner in Pawley’s Island (BH), our deceased author friend (who I ‘messaged’ with on Facebook-hated he passed), one other blogger and then this Tom Davis(whom I recall you BEGGING him not to sue you and take your moms house-as I recall you wanted to meet him at a park or at some business to try and talk him out of suing you and then you being homeless).I didn’t really care for Tom however your delight in his alleged bad fortune and/or misery at this time speaks volume of your character.

Take my earlier advice-don’t address me. I do keep up.You just don’t know EVERYTHING I keep up with. Thanks Boz. :-)

Buz Martin November 11, 2014 at 8:11 pm

pogo, I never begged Davis for a damned thing. I did try to stop his harrassment by meeting with him, as several people suggested I do — including that other “successful businessman” you keep obsessing over. (Who hates your guts, btw.) He refused. HE was the chicken shit, even though he was mighty “brave” in his talk about ambusing me in the dark, beating me to a pulp, shooting me, etc.

His threats about my mothers house were entirely based on his fake version of the facts. I would not have been homeless, at any rate, even if he’d had valid grounds for a suit and had his facts straight on who pays what here — and if he’d somehow managed to subvert the law and take possession of the property. That was another of his carefully-constructed fictions. I maintain another residence you don’t know about, fool, and have done so since I returned to the area from NC. It’s no longer in MB, though, as it was when I addressed MB City Council (another of your obsessions). None of your business where it is now, though.

As for that creep’s “alleged” offenses, there was no “bad fortune” involved. A habitual drunken driver is a potential killer. He’s just lucky he did not kill one or more people on the 4th of July, and only did damage to cars and other objects.

Don’t bother to thank me. You aren’t leaving, you never do — and as long as you talk smack about me I’ll continue to give it right back to you, you cowardly piece of shit.

diamond jim:elections have con November 11, 2014 at 8:53 pm

Buz,

You are a dangerous lunatic. Your entire post above consists of falsehoods.Don’t care that you apparently engaged in VOTER FRAUD with your alleged ever changing addresses (LOL).

Don’t care where you live. I asked you not to address me again. i have seen the damage you can do to others.Not interested anymore. I only wish you the best in your failed and miserable life.

Fuck you and please take my advice. Stay away. I don’t want to play.

Buz Martin November 11, 2014 at 9:16 pm

Pussy.

Whiney-ass little coward.

GrandTango November 10, 2014 at 3:57 pm

LMAO…now that is FUNNY, DJ!!!…I really can envision Boz doing that (and in a Speedo w/ faithful sidekick FITS by his side) from your description. Boz has the track record, and is famous for kook theories…

Boz is the type of fruitcake who thinks his neighbor is housing WMDs in is garage, but a president who has bent and reamed him over and over, is above reproach…

And you wonder who puts the Obamas and Clyburns in office. Wonder no more, when people on this level of intelligence are allowed to vote. LMAO…. (:

Reply
Buz Martin November 11, 2014 at 5:56 am

Oddly enough, I reproach Obama frequently. Somehow, your faulty circuits can’t compute that.

Time for you and “Diamond Jim” (pogo) to hook up and make imaginary fanatically obsessed demon-spawn, GT.

DO IT! You’re only old and totally bugfuck once, ya know.

GrandTango November 10, 2014 at 1:33 pm

I guess you’re right Boz. That’s about as Bat-S#!t crazy as thinking Obama would use the IRS to target Conservatives or use the NSA to spy on non-compliant reporters…

Dictators and liberals, just LOVE ignorant F*#ks like you….especially those stupid enough to go online and let everybody know how F*#king stupid you are…

Reply
Buz Martin November 10, 2014 at 6:49 pm

Mistah Lawrence, since you obviously don’t know jack shit about me, let me fill you in on a few things:

1. I am not a fan of Barack Obama as POTUS.
At.
All.

2. I am 100% opposed to NSA spying on law-abiding US citizens in general, and using them to spy on reporters is, in my opinion, particularly reprehensible.

3. I am not a fan of the IRS.
At.
All.

4. I am 100% opposed to any POTUS using the IRS to go after political enemies.

5. I am not a fan of you or your blog.
At.
All.

7. I am 100% sure that Barack Obama, himself, is not the least bit concerned with political blogs in SC, and if he’s ever heard of FITSNews at all, it has nothing to do with you — as you are essentially just another crazy-ass cracker in the comment threads. The pathetic waste of bandwidth that is your blog? So far off his radar it might as well be on one of the rings of Saturn.

Reply
GrandTango November 10, 2014 at 7:41 pm

He’s not concerned with Conservative groups or non-compliant reporters, to hear you and the rest of the punch-drunk Dumb@$$#$ tell it…Obama would never do that would he???…

I don’t mind ignorance, God gave you to us…it’s just complete know-it-all idiots – like you – who run their mouths, that get on my nerves…

Buz Martin November 11, 2014 at 12:57 am

F- for Reading Comprehension.

No soup for you November 10, 2014 at 12:05 pm

This is what government does. If something is good, it fucks it up.

Reply
Tom November 10, 2014 at 1:15 pm

You don’t get it. It is the large telecommunications companies that are trying to change what we have. They want the ability to force websites to pay them for access to their subscribers.

Reply
No soup for you November 10, 2014 at 1:19 pm

In a free market, no corporation can “force” anyone to do anything long term…competitors come in and take their business.

Sure, these corps started out with gov’t infrastructure dollars & granted monopolies…so they are really “private” in much sense of the word, but they will only have infuence for so long…with gov’t…the influence is until gov’t goes away…

Reply
No soup for you November 10, 2014 at 2:09 pm

* they AREN’T really private.

Reply
Smirks November 10, 2014 at 2:18 pm

In a free market, no corporation can “force” anyone to do anything long term…competitors come in and take their business.

Except for when competitors engage in collusion for their mutual benefit.

Reply
No soup for you November 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm

Like OPEC, amirite?

Tom November 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm

Why do people ignore history. Monopolies do not go away. They just get bigger. No one took the business of the monopolies of the robber barons. Competition did not end the monopolies of the robber barons. The government did. Without government intervention, you would buy all of your oil from Standard Oil at whatever price they wanted to charge. You would buy your electricity from a J. P. Morgan owned company at whatever price they wanted to charge.
And if you wanted to start a competing business and had the knowledge to do so, those same companies would do what they did before the government was involved. They would block your access to the infrastructure, markets, or financing your company needs to survive, and you would ultimately sell out to them at the price they want to pay.

Reply
No soup for you November 10, 2014 at 2:52 pm

“Monopolies do not go away. They just get bigger.”

So much for Schumpeters creative destruction or Christiansen’s disruptive innovation, eh?

I wish Apple knew about your theory today, before they lost their “monopoly” on the GUI they had for 10 years.

“those same companies would do what they did before the government was involved. They would block your access to the infrastructure, markets, or financing your company needs to survive”

And without gov’t force how would they do that? Would they hire Pinkerton’s to come burn down my business?

“”Why do people ignore history.”

I have no idea.

Native Ink November 10, 2014 at 3:49 pm

Seriously, I think some people don’t understand that net neutrality is what we already have. Obama isn’t trying to change anything. He just wants to keep the status quo.

Reply
What Free Market? November 10, 2014 at 9:27 pm

You are wrong.

He gets is .Hes a Republican and is in favor of what you are saying.

He believes in something called the free market.He can’t define it but he knows it when he sees it.

Reply
Nölff November 10, 2014 at 12:06 pm

So is it like a software sidewalk that we don’t even have to pay taxes for?
> No blocking.
> No throttling.
> Increased transparency.
> No paid prioritization.
That sells pretty good,
BUT… I’m curious to see the fine details. How much is the government gaining power from this? I wouldn’t put it past him to do that.

Reply
Unlimited Power! November 10, 2014 at 12:10 pm

The FCC is salivating, as well as the political establishment that is already close to regulating what preachers say in their church…you know they want to put a stop to us belittling our masters(them).

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia November 10, 2014 at 12:07 pm

Given Obola’s track record thus far, if he is supporting this, I don’t see how it can be good for us citizens or for our country.

Reply
Tom November 10, 2014 at 1:09 pm

Then you are blind or just listen to the Fake News folks

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia November 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm

Who is really blind?

His open borders have just added to our crime, welfare burdens, issues with contagion, and many other things that are not good.

His socialized medicine has caused the transformation of thousands of full-time jobs, into part-time jobs. This, apparently because the expense associated with his wonderful plan was to be avoided by companies via reduction of full-time workers.

Then we have his laughable handling of the Ebola crisis and failure to take common sense steps to quarantine or deny entry into the US, anyone who has been in West African hot zones.

These are just a few of his SNAFU’s. Who is really blind, here?

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 10, 2014 at 1:37 pm

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Reply
9" November 11, 2014 at 4:41 am

Did you make that up? Creative.

9" November 11, 2014 at 4:39 am

What Ebola crisis?

Reply
truthmonger November 11, 2014 at 1:03 pm

Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while….

Reply
idcydm November 10, 2014 at 4:09 pm

Fox News must really stick in your craw, don’t like it change the channel. I’m sure MSNBC would appreciate two of you watching.

Reply
Political Rainbow November 10, 2014 at 4:10 pm

I hear Maddow is looking for viewers.

Reply
Tazmaniac November 10, 2014 at 2:53 pm

I know what you mean. If the POS POTUS were to throw his support behind BBQ and BJs I would have to study the issue.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia November 10, 2014 at 10:43 pm

That’s rich!!!! Good one!

Reply
Let the Internet be Free... November 10, 2014 at 12:09 pm

People please educate yourselves on net neutrality. “Republicans” like Will Folks are claiming that this is more government intrusion into the “free market”. No it’s not….If the government doesn’t act soon, the “open” internet will be a thing of the past. Corporate profits and competing services will change what we and how fast we will be able to see it. Like now, they (telecommunication giants will (and I’m not talking about the NSA) continue to monitor everything we do online taking away even more of our privacy.

Reply
lulz November 10, 2014 at 12:12 pm

“and I’m not talking about the NSA”

No concern over the NSA eh? Worried about Walmart tracking your TP purchases instead?

Reply
Smirks November 10, 2014 at 12:42 pm

Privacy is privacy, whether it is from big government or big business.

Reply
lulz November 10, 2014 at 12:58 pm

Yea, but just remember that big business can get sued if they violate privacy…gov’t can’t.(some claim they can, but not really)

Most of the corporations collecting data on people are doing it with their consent.

Reply
Tom November 10, 2014 at 1:08 pm

But Republicans are constantly trying to limit the ability of the average person to sue big business. They will likely go full bore with this now. That will eliminate that protection.

lulz November 10, 2014 at 1:17 pm

No question that if this passes, gov’t will now exempt these large crony related companies from lawsuites…just like the EPA bullshit…which makes the gov’t “reponsible” for bad actors.

The only reason gov’t is doing it IMO is to control speech…using “throttling” as a BS red herring.

Smirks November 10, 2014 at 2:10 pm

Yea, but just remember that big business can get sued if they violate privacy…

Yes, in a government court, provided they haven’t fine printed you in the contract/T&C/EULA/etc. into waiving rights or agreeing to private arbitration with a company they’ve already selected that will lean in their favor.

Most of the corporations collecting data on people are doing it with their consent.

Most data collection by the private sector is done without expressly notifying the consumer. Don’t bullshit us with this “consent” crap because most people are entirely ignorant to the fact that they’ve consented to something. Just because some legal jargon is thrown into a ToS or privacy policy doesn’t mean the average consumer has read it, fully understood it, and wholeheartedly given permission to store every letter they type into a given website and track everything they do to share with third parties.

lulz November 10, 2014 at 2:46 pm

“Most data collection by the private sector is done without expressly notifying the consumer. Don’t bullshit us with this “consent” crap because most people are entirely ignorant to the fact that they’ve consented to something.”

lulz…you’ve just said two opposite things in the same paragraph.

I don’t know how to respond, so, you “win” by default.

vicupstate November 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm

Maybe he should have put consented in quotes, but the point is the same.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 11:33 am

The government can’t get sued? Lol wut?

lulz November 11, 2014 at 1:10 pm

So how many cases have you taken against the gov’t Jackie? Or are you activities constrained to ambulatory events?

You have to have deep, deep pockets to sue any arm of the gov’t successfully. So yes, in that respect, suing them is likely to be an exercise in futility after extensions, appeals, & discovery eats in the victims savings…and the gov’t purposely drown them in filing because it has unlimited money to defend itself with.

lulz November 11, 2014 at 1:10 pm

*your

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 2:08 pm

“You have to have deep, deep pockets to sue any arm of the gov’t successfully.”

(never heard of contingency fee case)

lulz November 11, 2014 at 2:19 pm

Are you kidding me? Give me a fucking break. Unless an attorney knows that it’s a slam dunk case he’s not investing a ton of money into contingency cases.(unless he’s desperate/shitty)

Jesus, I pray for whoever your clients are.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 2:23 pm

(he typed, believing that most plaintiff’s cases in the United States are financed by impoverished people)

lulz November 11, 2014 at 2:32 pm

Oh for fucks suck, stop putting words into my mouth. That’s not even remotely true. God knows how you make a living with all the time you spend here, you’re probably billing it to your customers.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 2:33 pm

(he typed, conceding he had been wrong all along)

lulz November 11, 2014 at 2:36 pm

(says the attorney with the inability to understand arguments)

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 2:43 pm

Lol. Mocking you this way is too easy, so I’ll just drop some knowledge on you. The big, bad, government, is slightly harder to sue than a private company. In general, you have to jump through extra hoops, and, depending on the government being sued, have your case heard in a different court (i.e. federal claims court for cases against the feds).

For most governmental entities, however, there is not unlimited funds to fight you with. Most governmental entities have some form of insurance for personal injury type claims. When there is not insurance coverage, that money has to come from somewhere. I assure you, there is not unlimited funds to fight lawsuits.

There are several attorneys right here in SC that make a living suing the government-and many of them operate mostly on contingency basis. I suggest you take the time to investigate items which you have no expertise on before casting yourself as an expert on the topic.

lulz November 11, 2014 at 2:49 pm

“When there is not insurance coverage, that money has to come from somewhere. I assure you, there is not unlimited funds to fight lawsuits.”

When compared to the average person, who might if they are lucky have $100k in savings, the average gov’t budget to respond to prosecution is tantamount to “unlimited”.

“There are several attorneys right here in SC that make a living suing the government-and many of them operate mostly on contingency basis.”

And how many of them take cases they aren’t clear cut?

“The big, bad, government, is slightly harder to sue than a private company.”

Glad you’re honest for once.

Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 2:53 pm

Believe, there’s plenty of attorneys willing to take non-clear cut cases because of the extremely high likelihood that there will be a settlement to save money. I’ve seen guys take crappy contingency cases, spend over $50k in expert witnesses, filing fees, deposition fees, court reporters, etc., and come out making a profit. There is a glut of attorneys right now and that means if a halfway viable case walks in the door, there will always be someone willing to take it.

truthmonger November 11, 2014 at 1:00 pm

Not really true. In most cases, the “permission” is buried in legalese somewhere in the depths of a contract for service (which you MUST agree to in order to get service —duress). Not everyone is a lawyer capable of wading through and understanding these contracts.

truthmonger November 11, 2014 at 12:57 pm

No, we ALREADY know and distrust the NSA. It’s PRIVATE INDUSTRY that we aren’t paying enough attention to.

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 10, 2014 at 12:14 pm

lol. Fits supporting its own demise now. Next he’ll be demanding the gov not regulate air pollution because the free market will determine who’s worthy of breathing air based on who can afford oxygen tanks.

Reply
Nostradumbass November 10, 2014 at 12:17 pm

“Fits supporting its own demise now.”

When is this demise going to occur?

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 10, 2014 at 1:36 pm

As soon as TWC and Comcast realize nobody’s going to pay to access Fitsnews.

Reply
Nostradumbass November 10, 2014 at 2:06 pm

Ah, I see. Good thing to know, this impending doom.

Reply
9" November 11, 2014 at 4:33 am

Do you have a library card? The Internet is dead.

Six ft. Under Makes Us All Eq November 10, 2014 at 12:35 pm

Jackie you are so right! This article made me take a deep belly laugh :)

Reply
Ayn Rand Was a Whore November 11, 2014 at 2:18 pm

I want to see all here “free market” believers paying to post their drivel here on Fits.

Then Fits bitchin about having to charge them because the big bad guvmint MADE these”service providers “do it!

Reply
Smirks November 10, 2014 at 12:26 pm

Exactly … no thanks to government, though.

*cough*DARPA created the internet*cough*

*cough*Government heavily subsidized expanding infrastructure*cough*

*cough*Government broke up AT&T which expanded competition*cough*

Reply
lulz November 10, 2014 at 1:06 pm

Expanding infrastructure? You mean, like 4th in the nation road system with no maintenance for a state 27th in land mass?

Broke up AT&T? You mean, the monopoly gov’t created in the first place?

One thing is though, our gov’t is very good at war, so you being an Obama supporter and all I suppose I’ll grant you more advanced drones and the like via Darpa is a good thing…even if they use private contractors for their tech breakthroughs(like the internets).

Reply
Smirks November 10, 2014 at 1:57 pm

Expanding infrastructure? You mean, like 4th in the nation road system with no maintenance for a state 27th in land mass?

Ah yes, comparing state roadways to subsidized telecommunications infrastructure. Great “argument” there.

Broke up AT&T? You mean, the monopoly gov’t created in the first place?

This is somewhat true due to the interference that happened in the early 1900s, but before that happened AT&T was already being looked at by antitrust regulators for buying out their competition in droves. (AT&T had to actually back off on buying competitors at the time because of this.)

The goal of AT&T in the 1900’s was always to become a monopoly, though. “One Policy, One System, Universal Service.” Yeah, that just screams “competition is great, yay free market” now doesn’t it?

That’s the problem with Libertarians. Yes, crony capitalism sucks ass, but come on dude, really? Zero government won’t create monopolies? Please.

One thing is though, our gov’t is very good at war, so you being an Obama supporter

Hey, war! Something else that’s completely off-topic regarding government’s role in telecommunications.

Reply
lulz November 10, 2014 at 2:54 pm

“Hey, war! Something else that’s completely off-topic regarding government’s role in telecommunications.”

You’re the one who brought up “Darpa” supra genius.

Reply
Paladin November 10, 2014 at 2:34 pm

C’mon, everyone knows Al Gore invented the internet!

Reply
Six ft. Under Makes Us All Eq November 10, 2014 at 12:32 pm

The Internet is and shall always be a public ulitity! If it takes so called ‘government regulations’ to make corporate telecommunication gants understand this….oh well!!

Reply
Native Ink November 10, 2014 at 3:38 pm

The internet is the best example of “You didn’t build that.” Decades of taxpayer-funded research built the internet. Now corporations want to own it outright without any consideration for the public good.

Reply
Halfvast Conspirator November 10, 2014 at 1:09 pm

Filet Clyburn got us covered!

Reply
Filet all up in ur shit November 10, 2014 at 1:14 pm

lulz! Great comment.

Reply
jimlewisowb November 10, 2014 at 1:13 pm

Ignoranus – Word of the day

Definition: A person who’s both stupid and an asshole

Use in Sentence: POTUS is an ignoranus.

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 10, 2014 at 2:14 pm

So the big telecom companies use government power through eminent domain and government subsidies to build their infastructure under the guise of bringing access to the people, then they tell the government to mind its own business because they built the infastructure?

Reply
Native Ink November 10, 2014 at 3:34 pm

I don’t know about where you live, but I have 2 choices for cable internet providers. They are both big corporations. Changing your internet provider is not as easy as you make it sound.

The Libertarian ideal seems to be a world where there is no public space. Every place is owned by someone who can make up the rules as they see fit, including virtual space. That seems like the opposite of liberty to me.

Reply
Fits Ain't No Republican November 10, 2014 at 3:37 pm

Good to see Fits back into his “All In” Republican mode.

You see he can only keep that “anti Republican ” persona up for so long.Then ,his natural instincts kick in.Why EVERY article he’s posted today is pro Republican.

Don’t worry though.Some Republican will say something he doesn’t like and we will be subjected to one of his weekly anti Republican diatribes.

They’re funny really.Whats even funnier is that the guy seems to have convinced himself that he really isn’t what he is

A Republican ,though frequently disgruntled and cranky about it ,but STILL

Just another REPUBLICAN.

Rant on Fits!

Reply
Native Ink November 10, 2014 at 3:45 pm

Did you know that South Carolina citizens could have had free wireless internet? Back in the 1960s, S.C. was thinking of avoiding school desegregation by having white children educated in their homes using ETV radio and television. In preparation, they gave a large part of the wireless spectrum to ETV and build broadcast towers across the state. These assets could have been used to bring free internet to South Carolina citizens. But how could South Carolina do something so brazenly for the public good? Instead they privatized those assets and sold them for a ridiculously low price.

It’s fascinating history, but I probably didn’t do it justice. Here’s an article with more about it:

http://www.free-times.com/archives/south-carolinas-broadband-how-officials-quietly-privatized-a-key-state-asse

Reply
Tom November 11, 2014 at 11:21 am

It does not matter. The cost to build towers and bring free internet to most SC citizens would be minimal. The cost per citizen would be a fraction of what they are paying for private internet service now. Of course the ISPs and cell phone companies would go nuts, and any politician who proposed it would be out of office the next election.
After all that would be socialism.
“….with liberty and justice for sale.”

Reply
Squishy123 November 10, 2014 at 8:57 pm

So… what happened to the “Lattimore should have gotten paid” article? It was here this afternoon and now it’s gone. Did Ray Tanner call Fits and tell him to pull it?

Reply
FastEddy23 November 10, 2014 at 9:29 pm

The “progressive” Fascists have spoken. G’ment control of every aspect is their goal and They will not stop until the revolution comes to take Them down … Oh Bummer.

Reply
nitrat November 10, 2014 at 10:38 pm

Libertarians are just shills for Big Business…just the way the Big Business Kochs want it.

Reply
Philip Branton November 11, 2014 at 12:25 am

LOL……… I have not read all 76 + comments ….BUT …..I still have not seen anyone mention FIBER to the house. This whole net neutrality is a TAX fiasco waiting to happen. I remember after Hurricane Hugo in 1989 how SOUTHERN BELL outside plant engineers were screaming about getting fiber the “last mile” back then. This technology knuckle dragging is costing our economy and consumer lifestyle BIG TIME.

This is not about net neutrality……….this is ……information control to benefit a very few. This is WAR where the consumers have no idea WHO is calling the shots.

Just think……..if everyone had fiber to the house……where would COPPER prices be..?

Heck …..Bill Gates was going to put up a system of world wide Microsoft satellites as far back as 2006 to roll out world wide EDUCATION capability and look how he got shot down and out of Microsoft. (….and kids still mule around heavy books in their backpacks……..)

Grab your wallets boys………..and LADIES……………your getting ready to be milked like you have never seen before.

{ Boomerang Elsey the Internet Cow………}

Reply
Buz Martin November 11, 2014 at 5:58 am

Either that really does almost make sense or I’m going mad myself.

Reply
Philip Branton November 12, 2014 at 9:01 am

Buz………….you going MAD? I don’t think so……….I would argue that you are “diligently CONCERNED”…!!

+ 25 points and a “Mirror/Mirror Badge”……..

Reply
FastEddy23 November 11, 2014 at 10:37 am

“… This is not about net neutrality this is information control to benefit a very few. … This is WAR where the consumers have no idea WHO is calling the shots. …”

Phillip is absolutely correct (even the esoteric parts).

It’s “The Phone Company” all over again!, calling the shots and “progressive” Fascists elites in g’ment seeing the advantage of confusion and cluelessness of their constituents to extend their power hungry, greedy hands into a technology even They do not understand.

This is a direct violation of the First Amendment on the face of it … and that is really all anyone need to know.

Same, same as with BummerCare: “we have to pass it before you can read it” … same, same as the tax code: “you didn’t build that” … same, same as the last election: “we are going to retain the senate” …

Reply
9" November 11, 2014 at 4:07 am

Does ‘net neutrality’ mean only bisexual porn?

Reply
Nice! November 11, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Who the fuck knows what it means. We’ll have to wait for them to pass the bill before we know what’s in it…and even then…once it’s acceptable for them to control the internet they’ll just make up the rule as the go…it’s the FCC…they do that shit all the time.

Reply
RogueElephant November 11, 2014 at 7:53 am

The scariest words ever spoken : “I’m from the govt. and I’m here to help.”

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 11:54 am

False. The scariest words ever spoken are “Comcast is the only cable provider in your area.”

Reply
RogueElephant November 11, 2014 at 8:00 pm

I’m probably not as up on this as I should be because I have Directv and a dish on the side of my house but it looks to me like this is govt. messing with broadcasting. “if you like your cable provider you can keep your cable provider.” Comes to mind. Personally we have some body here that provides “cable” but I have heard so much crap about it I keep my own dish.

Reply
RogueElephant November 11, 2014 at 8:02 pm

I’m probably not as up on this as I should be because I have Directv and a dish on the side of my house but it looks to me like this is govt. messing with broadcasting. “if you like your cable provider you can keep your cable provider.” Comes to mind.

Reply
Jackie Chiles November 11, 2014 at 8:14 pm

Believe me, those words are like saying “if you like your cancer, you can keep your cancer.”

I had direct tv, but I hated contracts. After my first year, the price doubled and I was trapped for another year. Now direct tv calls me literally once a week From different numbers every time trying to get me to come back. I can’t even go into Walmart without these hucksters asking me if I want direct tv.

Reply
truthmonger November 11, 2014 at 9:08 pm

No. It means your cable provider can show preferential treatment to their preferred sites, and those they disagree with become all but inaccessible. In this case, gov’t is actually on the side of LESS restriction.

Reply
nitrat November 11, 2014 at 10:52 am

,,

Reply
gvsteve November 12, 2014 at 2:58 pm

If people had more than one or, at most, two internet service providers to pick from, Net Neutrality would not be an issue. The market would be free to select service providers that don’t censor the Internet.

But we don’t live in that world. As long as we have telecom monopolies, we need telecom regulation to prevent them from blocking out unfavored websites and web services. And for those who say it’s not a problem, look at how Time Warner was intentionally slowing down their customers’ access to Netflix until Netflix paid them millions in ransom.

Imagine if your power company said “Our electricity only works with Sony products. And we’re the only option you have for electricity.” That’s exactly what telecoms are trying to do with the internet.

Reply

Leave a Comment