« | »

FCC Backs Google/Soros ‘Net Neutrality’

From the Agence France-Pressee:

FCC chairman to outline rules for ‘net neutrality’

WASHINGTON — The head of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is expected to outline rules on Monday requiring Internet providers to respect "net neutrality," the principle that all Web traffic should be treated equally.

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski is to make a speech at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-based think tank, on Monday during which he will "affirm his support for a free and open Internet," the FCC said.

The regulatory body did not provide any further details about Genachowski’s speech, his first major pronouncement on the hotly contested issue since taking office.

But The Wall Street Journal and other newspapers said the FCC chairman would propose rules that would prevent Internet providers from blocking or slowing bandwidth-hogging Web traffic such as streaming video or other applications that put a strain on their networks.

During his White House campaign, President Barack Obama came out strongly in favor of net neutrality, which is backed by companies such as Google and Amazon and consumer advocacy groups, but opposed by telecommunications, wireless and cable companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

The Journal, citing "people familiar with the plan," said Genachowski is expected to propose that rules against blocking or slowing Web traffic should also apply to wireless-phone companies, which currently restrict data flow over their airwaves to prevent congestion.

It said Genachowski was expected to propose that the FCC clarify its current net neutrality principles and add on a new one which would require carriers to practice "reasonable" network management.

It said the agency would ask for guidance on how to define "reasonable."

Internet providers in the past have rejected what they see as government interference in their networks and how they manage traffic.

The US Congress has also been looking into the issue and a net neutrality bill is expected to be introduced shortly in the House of Representatives.

We won’t try to go into the intricacies of the arguments for and against ‘net neutrality,’ except to say that at it’s best it is (like so many other government programs), it is a solution in search of a problem.

Except that the problem here is too much freedom.

As we have noted before, all one really needs to know about ‘net neutrality’ is that its biggest promoters are Google and George Soros.

It is also promoted by a number of other hard left organizations, such as (the laughably self-styled) Free Press and the Center For American Progress.

There may even be support from leftwing groups which are not funded by Mr. Soros. (If any such groups actually exist.)

But what else is new?

For some reason we are reminded of the defining elements of totalitarianism as listed in the book Lenin And The Russian Revolution, by Steve Phillips, p 138:

There really isn’t too much missing from the checklist.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, September 21st, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

16 Responses to “FCC Backs Google/Soros ‘Net Neutrality’”

  1. Flession says:

    Quite honestly, ever since this movement came out, I’ve been drawing a blank. I really don’t understand the argument, mainly because no one is actually doing a argument. I’ve always been skeptical since it is, of course, a Google/Soros joint, but I really am unsure what it’s trying to accomplish.

    Anyone help me out as to what the hell this is?

    • proreason says:

      This isn’t a discussion I’ve followed but it usually isn’t very challenging to figure these guys out. At the heart of everything, they want a tiny elite (them) to rule the world, and they want everybody else to be prostrate to them in every way.

      So here is how this net neutrality think probably fits into that.

      Today, net businesses manage traffic on the internet. The article says that they slow down massive file transfers in order to allow smaller messages through. Makes sense, somebody has to create order out of chaos, and rapid delivery of emails, instant messages, and twitter type messages is important to most internet users.

      But that means that private business are in conrol of an important service, doesn’t it? They have power.

      And Soros wants all power to be centralized in his own hands. Ergo, take away the ability of private businesses to manage network traffic. That would quickly result in the internet grinding to a halt. One might say the situation would quickly become a “crisis”. Particularly if some nefarious people starting flooding the network with massive video files 24×7, not that anybody would ever consider doing that. But if a “crisis” were to develop, some entity would have to step in, no? Guess who? Why, it would have to be Government, of course.

      So what is Google’s play? Google is run by liberal idealogues. Even if internet traffic grinds to a halt for a while, Google’s business won’t be affected for long because government would step in. And the government consolidating power is what idealogues want. The people who run Google won’t be any better financially after it’s all over, but they will be even more secure in their ascendency as key member of the Politburo that has all of the power all of the time. And as a bonus, some of Google’s rivals might be crushed during the melee.

      Again, speculation. But these criminals are as easy to figure out as 3 year-olds.

  2. Let’s say they appoint the net neutrality czar to monitor web traffic. His job is to make sure that all web traffic has equal access to available bandwidth. Great!

    Will it stop there? Once the monitoring system is in place, will they insist on equal bandwidth, look the other way or ban say an aryan brotherhood site and other “hate sites”. Will they insist that google index all sites – including child porn, illegal downloads and hate sites.

    I am guessing that once a czar is has influence over traffic on the internet, he find a way to use it for his parties political advantage.

  3. Howard Roark says:

    Google, besides being liberal-run, also needs for net neutrality to win so that their ads will be seen by the widest possible audience. If Comcast is allowed to price their isp service into tiers, depending on whether you, as a customer, want to pay a higher per-month fee for reliable Youtube streaming, then the folks at Google (owners of Youtube and many other online free services), stand to lose ad revenue money.

    Curiously, there is ramped-up talk of Barry’s anti-trust DOJ commisars actually targeting the red-diaper duo who founded Google for monopolistic practices. If one were a skeptic of how the Chicago-political aparatus of the Obama administration does business, one would see a desperate Google cooperating in ANY way necessary (search records of certain enemies’ list members of the Soros/Obama/Chicom/Russian cabal, etc), with lobbying, media, and direct funding for Net Neutrality and any further such Central Committee desires that should arise for the next 4 to eight years (as long as they aren’t from the DOJ’s antitrust dept).

  4. Right of the People says:

    China already has net neutrality, the government lets through only what they want. Barry and his puppet master Soros probably have this as their ultimate goal. After all they can’t have rebellious sites like American Thinker, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and yes, even Sweetness and Light broadcasting lies about our Dear Leader and his minions now can they?

    We’ve got to take this sucker back and like right now. If we wait until 2012 there might not be much left to take.

  5. crosspatch says:

    Everyone is going to just love net neutrality when the 14 year olds suck up all available bandwidth exchanging pirated music, movies, and porn on peer to peer applications and now your web browsing and VOIP don’t work.

    Perfect example of people who do not understand the technical details of what is going on getting involved in a technical issue. QoS was developed for a reason. That reason was to make sure there are adequate resources for high priority applications that need to work (web browsing or VOIP or whatever) so that someone flooding the network with lower priority traffic won’t disrupt everything else.

    “net neutrality” is really designed to cause network providers to buy huge amounts of capacity to satisfy utilization by low priority traffic. Sharing that bootleg copy of a movie is now going to go much faster … at the cost of everything else going slower. It makes networks more susceptible to denial of service through traffic flooding.

    The end result is that everyone’s internet costs are going to go up to pay for the purchase of that additional capacity. Cisco is laughing all the way to the bank.

  6. Steve says:

    As if If we didn’t have enough reason to doubt the FCC’s backing ‘Net Neutrality,’ just from the support it gets from Google and Soros and MoveOn and the rest of the ultra left.

    The head of the FCC head has decided to scribe an editorial for Zsa Zsa’s Huffington Post:

    Julius Genachowski: The Open Internet: Preserving the Freedom to Innovate

  7. VMAN says:

    Like I’ve said before the dirty little secret is that big business has NO problem with socialism. GOOGLE YOU NATIONAL SEARCH ENGINE

    • proreason says:

      Existing successful businesses seek only to remain in business.

      By partnering with Fascist governements, they actually enhance their odds of success.

      The businesses that are hurt are the ones too small to have an influence on the commissars, and the businesses that haven’t been created yet, because the big businesses partnering with big government will make it as difficult as possible for smaller competitors to succeed.

      So the real victims are the people who won’t get to enjoy the goods and services that will be strangled from seeing the light of day.

      Like life-saving medicines and medical devices.

  8. Fuzzlenutter says:

    The day George Soros goes the way of Ted Kennedy will be a fantastic day indeed…

  9. catie says:

    If George Soros had his way, we wouldn’t have access to this site.

  10. BillK says:

    crosspatch is exactly right.

    Ted Stevens got a lot of flack for calling the Internet a “series of tubes” but he was correct.

    Every connection between you and whatever site you want to access has a finite bandwidth capacity.

    Fill that with 14 year-olds downloading gigabytes of pirated movies, music, software and of course, mostly porn, and when you can’t email friends or family due to all the other traffic, Internet providers can do absolutely nothing about it.

    All Internet providers rely on traffic shaping now to make sure their networks don’t collapse under the strain.

    The FCC is about to flip them the proverbial bird and tell them it doesn’t matter.

    So although predictions regarding the “death of the Internet” are legion, this decision may finally actually do it.

    Why should AT&T and others spend money on expanding their infrastructure when they literally will not be able to monetize a return, ever?

    All those video on demand services? Streaming Netflix?

    Nope. All you’ll see is “Buffering…”

    This is what’s so frustrating about the left; Google the Stevens incident and you’ll find page after page on what an incredible moron Stevens was, how he didn’t know what he was talking about and how Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show made fun of him for weeks on end.

    What you will not find is a page explaining how he was wrong.

    Because a tube is a pipe, and the Internet is nothing but a series of interconnected data pipes of varying capacity.

    But hey, the left’s ridiculing someone as wrong without having to explain why they’re wrong is their standard operating procedure, along with making wild statements and promises they cannot back up and attacking those who question them.

    The precise things they attack those who are religious for.

  11. crosspatch says:

    Here is one way that people who don’t understand what is going on take advantage of people’s fears. Every packet has an ip address and a “port” of where it is from and where it is going. That is sort of like the zip code on an envelope. The easiest way to give higher priority to web traffic is to increase the priority of traffic to or from ports 80 and 443. Those are http and https.

    I have heard people saying such things as it being necessary to inspect the traffic in order to determine the priority and it thereby opens the door to snooping. But that is a lie. Nobody is going to do “deep packet inspection” as it is too CPU intensive and most routers that do huge volumes of traffic can’t do it. That is the realm of firewalls. The port is right there in the packet header which is sort of like an envelope. It contains the destination address and port. A router can set the QoS bits by looking only at the header.

    An analog might be ZIP codes with the new +4. Think of the IP address as the first 5 digits and the port being the +4 numbers after the 5-digit zip. It is just as easy to read the 5 digits as it is to read all 9. You don’t need to open the envelope and look at the contents to make SURE it is http protocol inside. Simply looking at the source and destination ports will allow you to catch 99.99% of web traffic. Protocols such as bittorrent run on widely known ports, too. They have to so people can find each other’s torrents. You can do things in a non-standard fashion but the huge majority of the users don’t. It is sort of the 85% rule. If you can so something easily that gets you 85% of the way to your goal, you are probably better of doing that than in spending huge amounts of resources to capture that last 15%. You just let it go rather than doing things like deep packet inspection because the costs are too high.

    Besides, this prioritization does not usually propagate between networks. Lets say I want to prioritize ftp traffic in my network. So I set the QoS bits on the packet. When that packet leaves my network, the receiving network applies their own priority. I can’t adjust my traffic priority and expect any other network to honor my settings. They have their own settings. They might set my FTP traffic to be low priority in their network and my web traffic to be high. Why spend a few million dollars on firewalls to inspect hundreds of gigabits of traffic when you can get 85% there at 10% of the cost by simply looking at the ports?

    Now there are going to be people who run web services on non-standard ports (8080 is a common one) who will find their traffic at lower priority. But for the government to tell me what priority I must place on a packet in my own network is absolutely nuts. How would they know? Are they going to require that all networks upload their router configurations so they can be checked for compliance? And the Internet is global. US FCC regulations stop at the border. There is no such thing as “the internet”. It is all a bunch of private networks that are connected together and agree to communicate with one another.

  12. wirenut says:

    I certainly belive that there’s a lot of slop clogging up the net and airwaves Zzz today,but Zzzzzz really important is the freedom to express one’s Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz No one Zzzz can Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz away.
    Only our elected officials can Zzzzzzzzzzz freedom of speech! Zzzzz and Zzzzzzzz Americans!

  13. wirenut says:

    Sorry about the latest rant, seems there was a soros-static field eruption Zzz on the net. ZZZZzzzzzzz Hello?, anybody outZzzzzz.
    I Zzzzz never be Zzzz Zzzzzzzzzz, and you can tell Nancy and Harry to shove it up ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Freedom of speech? GoZZzzz Bless AmericZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Further more,ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

    • canary says:

      well, look how they controlled the internet the last two 9/11 anniversary’s. I could not find anything Friday nite. That was the day we lost 4 U.S. Marines because of a goat.

      We never got an update on the U.S. soldier shot for drinking water during Ramadan, when the Afgan policeman shot him, as they were fasting during the daytime.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »