Ever since Obama was elected, I have felt like we are living under a blitzkrieg.

In the book REVOLT( www.revoltthebook.com), the time period is set in 2015, the characters can only communicate over the net using chameleon programs because everything is monitored, the airwaves are limited by the fairness doctrine and the only voice heard by the people is the voice of the MSM, which is in bed with the President.

Short wave was used by the heroes until the towers where destroyed.

Think about how every time your Internet goes down you feel cut off. Imagine if it was taken down by the government, just like in China?

It can happen there, it can happen here.

Welcome to the new world.

Everyone will have the same, slow, crap, gubmint cheese connection.

Communications Act of 1934 rather broadly specify the regulation of communication by radio and wires. I guess why would the internet be outside their mandate?

Isn’t that what the socialists want? They keep pushing and pushing, do THEY expect US to keep taking it? I’m a reasonable person, I just enjoy the liberty we take for granted.

Why does the government feel the need to regulate EVERYTHING.

and by the way, check out this crazy political forum / website. The two sides are GOING AT IT!

http://www.example.com

I can see the administration losing another of it’s core constituencies and having to abandon it.

The younger people, the majority Internet users, might be silly and ignorant, but they will not stand for any sort of censorship if it is applied to THEM.

Of the issue in Comcast v. FCC was that Comcast had been restricting the bandwidth allocated to its users who had been using Peer to Peer sharing (namely bittorent). The court essentially ruled that the by regulating Comcast’s network management practices, specifically, requiring that Comcast allow everyone equal access to its bandwidth, the FCC has overstepped its mandate as provided by congress. Frankly, i agree with their ruling on a legal level, but don’t know if i like the practical implications of it.

The issue i have with whats being said here, is that net neutrality isn’t about letting everyone say what they want on the internet, in fact net neutrality has nothing to do with speech on the internet. The sole goal of net neutrality is to not allow service providers to restrict bandwidth to certain sites or to certain users and to allow in that sense, everyone equal access to the internet.

Net Neutrality, although i can see how the name makes it sound like a trojan horse, has nothing to do with the government regulating what types of speech is allowed or favored on the internet. It has to the do with the regulation of service providers, and not allowing them to impede all of us from accessing the sites we enjoy.

Now there can be a real debate on whether or not the FCC should do that, or just let the free market be, even if it means we have to pay for sites like youtube or hulu.

And i will say this, managing networks with millions of customers is not easy, and its not like Comcast is some parasite trying to take us for everything we’re worth, they are trying to make smart business decisions. But i think if we want to keep the internet the way we know it, net neutrality is a must.

SURPRISE! DUH!

Would anything be regulated by servers located offshore? Is moving to offshore servers an option ?

Skype seems to be expanding, announcing group videochat and better worldwide calling. I’d think that area would be on the radar for regulation by FCC for taxing power. The govt cannot allow anything that they don’t get paid protection money on.

This regime & it’s f.c.c are not going to allow an opposing view to gain the same size and scope that talk radio has. Conservatives were a little slow getting into the internet, and that’s changed. You have to give credit where credit is due, progressives/marxists stick to the gameplan. Wilson stamped out dissent, making it illegal to speak out against w.w.1 in print, and closing the newspapers and magazines who did, as did f.d.r., using l.b.j.’s “fairness doctrine”(the preachers in l.b.j.’s district in texas had radio shows and they outted l.b.j. for pulling votes out of their church graveyards). This regime’s handling their problem in exactly the same fashion, control the information in an up and coming news/info. source. Talk radio and fox are next. Knowledge and truth are the antibodies to progressivism/marxists, and they know their history also. It took decades to remedy their censorship.

Just a thought…

Somebody in charge of the FCC, and possibly 2,3,4 layers down from there. It won’t happen before January 2011, but it sure better happen after the new GOP House opens an investigation, issues subpoenas, and takes testimony as to what has happened here.

You state in your article that when the various Free Press sites say that they have “over (insert different numbers here) supporters”, they are lying; what I don’t get is, how are they lying? They all say over 1 million, 1.6 million, or 1.7 million. Isn’t that similar to, say, someone saying that there are over 9000 residents of the U.S.A., and then continuing on to say that there are over 307,000,000 (as of July 2009)? Are either of those lying? Also, you state yourself that Cecilia Kang does not fact check; how do we know she did not fact check when she said that there were only half a million supporters of Free Press? Some clarification would be nice, thanks.