Whereas I agree with a lot of what you said, I think in a group with
divergent political opinions it would be better to focus on the technical
flaws of Net Neutrality.

On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 6:04 PM, Eric Oyen <eric.oyen@icloud.com> wrote:

> Below is the text from an article covering net neutrality. It seems that
> we, out here, with our limited view of things might be missing the big
> picture.
>
> what is net neutrality?
> better yet, what is REAL net neutrality?
>
> anywya, this article might illuminate some of the real issues.
>
>
> http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/11/repealing_obamas_net_
> neutrality_a_blow_for_freedom.html
>
>
> November 28, 2017
>
> Repealing Obama's Net Neutrality a Blow for Freedom
>
> By Daniel John Sobieski
>
> The FCC is expected to vote and approve on December 14 Chairman Ajit Pai’s
> proposal to end the so-called “net neutrality” rules imposed by President
> Obama’s FCC in 2015. This has provoked howls from liberals and tech giants
> that this is a blow for Internet freedom and another boon for big business.
> It is exactly the opposite. It is in fact a boon for economic and political
> freedom as are all the other Obama-era regulations rescinded by the Trump
> administration that have promoted economic growth and lessened our
> dependency on big government. As the Washington Examiner notes:
>
> Sometimes you have to wonder how sincere people are when they gnash their
> teeth and pull out their hair over President Trump blocking or reversing an
> Obama-era regulation.
>
> The latest cries of distress about anarchy and market apocalypse can be
> heard about an announcement by the Federal Communications Commission that
> it
> will roll back “net neutrality.”
>
> Net neutrality’s dubious value is made obvious by the misleading way
> Democrats and many news outlets reported the decision. “F.C.C. plans net
> neutrality repeal in a victory for telecoms,” wrote the New York Times.
> Missing from the headline or lede was that the decision was a loss for
> Netflix, Amazon, Google, and other corporate giants that provide content.
>
> Liberals oppose the free flow of information they can’t control and in the
> name of providing equal access to all they sought to regulate the access of
> everybody. They., in effect, sought to put toll booths and speed bumps on
> the information superhighway. As the Daily Signal reported:
>
> On Wednesday, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai revealed his most important change yet:
> eliminating the spectacularly nonsensical “net neutrality” rules imposed by
> President Barack Obama’s FCC in 2015.
>
> The 2015 rules deemed internet service providers such as Verizon and
> Comcast
> to be “common carriers” under the 80-year-old Communications Act.
>
> This allowed the FCC to subject those companies to meticulous FCC control
> over how they provide service --specifically, net neutrality rules
> requiring
> providers to treat all internet transmissions equally, even if the sender
> or
> consumer would prefer customized service.
>
> Not surprisingly, investment in broadband networks subsequently declined,
> and innovation -- such as certain free data service plans -- was
> threatened.
>
>
> But Wednesday, the FCC chairman revealed plans to repeal the 2015 Open
> Internet Order and return to what he described as “the light-touch
> regulatory framework that served our nation so well.”
>
> President Obama feared the free flow of information as a threat to his
> power
> grabs and attempt to fundamentally transform the United States. Just as
> cable news eliminated the old guard network’s role as gatekeepers of what
> we
> saw and heard, the Internet freed information consumers to seek the truth
> and speak their minds in an unfettered environment.
>
> Under net neutrality, the FCC took for itself the power to regulate how
> Internet providers manage their networks and how they serve their
> customers.
> The FCC would decide how and what information could flow through the
> Internet, all in the name of providing access to the alleged victims of
> corporate greed.
>
> The Internet, perhaps as much as the first printing press, has freed the
> minds of men from the tyranny of those gatekeepers who know that if you can
> control what people say and know, you can control the people themselves.
> And
> that is what President Obama feared. In a May 2010 commencement speech to
> graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, President Obama complained
> that
> too much information is actually a threat to democracy.
>
> Obama’s fear of Internet freedom and the free flow of information was noted
> by Investor’s Business Daily when it editorialized in 2014:
>
> We would suggest that it is because Obama has long opposed the free flow of
> information as a hindrance to his ambitious big-government agenda, an
> animus
> that started with diatribes against cable outlets such as Fox News and
> conservative talk radio.
>
> In a 2010 speech to graduates at Hampton University in Virginia, Obama
> complained that too much information is a threat to democracy.
>
> “With iPods and iPads and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know
> how to work -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of
> entertainment, rather than a means of emancipation,” he opined.
>
> “All of this is not only putting new pressures on you, it is putting new
> pressures on our country and on our democracy.”
>
> We said at the time that we disagreed with his views. Dissent, we argued,
> doesn’t threaten our republic. But free speech restrains the tyrants and
> socialists who would steal our freedoms. The Internet is the direct
> descendant of the pamphleteers who energized the American Revolution. This
> time it’s not the British coming as tyrants, but Obama and the FCC.
>
> In George Orwell’s classic 1984, the control of information and its flow
> was
> critical to “Big Brother” maintaining is control over the people and in
> manipulating their passions. Authoritarian governments and dictators
> worldwide know that lesson well. Now the Obama administration wants
> globalists to be the “Big Brother” of the Internet.
>
> The ability to see how others live and the ability to exchange ideas is a
> catalyst to dissent and unrest. It is the preserver of freedom. The ability
> to choke off that flow is a necessity for authoritarian governments. That
> is
> why the Obama administration so hated outlets like Fox News and talk radio.
> The Internet and social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have
> helped fuel democratic movements from our own Tea Party to the Iranian
> dissidents.
>
> It used to be three networks controlled the information we saw and heard.
> Thanks to the Internet, talk radio, and cable news, we have access to
> formerly unheard and suppressed voices. News and commentary no longer has
> to
> get past the gatekeepers at CBS, ABC, NBC, the Washington Post, and the New
> York Times.
>
> The Founding Fathers wisely provided for freedom of speech and of the press
> as a means of guaranteeing our freedom and our democracy. The Internet is
> the new free press and an outlet for or free speech.
>
> As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized in January 2011, an unfettered
> Internet is exactly what the Founders had in mind and what tyrants fear
> most:
>
> Al Gore didn't invent the Internet, but if Thomas Jefferson could have he
> would have. The Internet, with its Facebooks and Twitters, is the perfect
> venue for and example of the free speech the Founding Fathers enshrined in
> the Constitution's First Amendment….
>
> The issue is not access, but control. In February 2008, FCC Diversity Czar
> Mark Lloyd, an admirer of what Venezuela's Hugo Chavez did to silence his
> country's media, wrote about net neutrality in an article, "Net Neutrality
> Is A Civil Rights Issue," published by CommonDreams.org.
>
> "Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn't value the
> Internet for its public interest benefits," Lloyd wrote. "Instead, these
> companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must
> control what content you see and how you get it." Lloyd feels government
> should be the voice controlling what you see and hear.
>
> Like the “control voice” on the old Outer Limits series, Obama and the
> liberals wanted to control everything you say and hear. Senator Ted Cruz,
> who opposed giving away U.S. control of the Internet to the United Nations
> or any foreign regulatory body, in 2014 rightly compared net neutrality to
> ObamaCare:
>
> Cruz, who is mulling a run for president in 2016, compared the entire
> concept of "net neutrality" -- which posits that internet companies should
> not be allowed to speed or slow down their services for certain users -- to
> Obama's much-maligned healthcare reform.'"Net Neutrality' is Obamacare for
> the Internet; the Internet should not operate at the speed of government,"
> Cruz wrote on Twitter. Cruz's spokeswoman, Amanda Carpenter, added that net
> neutrality would place the government "in charge of determining pricing,
> terms of service, and what products can be delivered. Sound like Obamacare
> much?"
>
> Net neutrality was not designed to liberate but to suppress. It is the
> Fairness Doctrine of the Internet that like Obama’s war on Fox News and
> conservative talk radio is designed to marginalize and silence those who
> disagree with those in power.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
>