Posted by DrJohn on 10 November, 2014 at 1:23 pm. 24 comments already!

internet-control

Barack Obama has moved to have government take control of the internet:

President Obama urged the US government to adopt tighter regulations on broadband service in an effort to preserve “a free and open Internet.”

In a statement released Monday, Obama called on the Federal Communications Commission to enforce the principle of treating all Internet traffic the same way, known in shorthand as Net neutrality. That means treating broadband services like utilities, the president said, so that Internet service providers would be unable “to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.”

This is a canard. These things always are, especially from Obama. Above all, Obama is a liar.

Proponents argue that Title II regulation would ensure the free and fair flow of traffic across the Internet. Opponents, however, believe the reorientation would mean onerous rules that would limit investment in the infrastructure and in new services, and that toll roads of sorts would provide better service to companies that can support their higher traffic volumes. But that in turn has created widespread concern that ISPs could throttle service in some instances, intentionally slowing some content streams and speeding others.

Some of the major broadband providers have already spoken out against the plan. “Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation,” Verizon said in an e-mailed statement.

If government gets control of the internet, internet costs will go up for all taxpayers so that those who add nothing to society will get it for free. Illegals will demand free internet and devices to access it paid for by you. Internet content will be censored, there will be a tax on the flow of information and conservative websites will see traffic diverted and they will crash non-stop. All in time for the 2016 election.

John Lott, 2010:

But it doesn’t take much imagination to see where these regulations can lead. Take the power of the FCC to levy fines for obscene language. Might the FCC want to reclassify cable programming so that it can impose the same fines on HBO and Showtime that it now imposes on over-the-air broadcasts?

Surely, if the federal government can provide a “good reason” to reclassify broadband services as telecommunications, if can come up with a “good reason” to prevent such bad language.

Take the “fairness” doctrine, a rule created during the 1940s requiring that broadcast stations give equal time to both sides of controversial issues.

In 1987, Ronald Reagan got rid of this regulation. To silence right-wing criticism, the Obama administration is already trying to reimpose a version of the fairness doctrine on broadcast stations.

Before you hit any keys, remember that Obamacare is premised entirely on lies. Remember that Obama depended heavily on the stupidity of Americans and lack of transparency to get Obamacare passed.

Remember all this when Obama says “If you like your internet, you can keep your internet. If you like your current provider and plan, no one will take that away from you no matter what.”

Imagine Michelle Obama telling you where you can go and what you can say on the internet.

And never, ever forget that Barack Obama is, above all, a liar.

UPDATE

Forbes

To make their proposals palatable, network neutrality advocates suggest that the FCC might in its discretion “forbear” from various regulations. But FCC forbearance takes years with uncertain outcomes. And the FCC likely does not have the discretion to find that some interstate telecommunications services pay fees and others do not. Inevitably, network neutrality with “telecommunications services” will lead to new fees and regulations that will harm the Internet.

It is easy to see government abuses of the Internet abroad. It is time we took a closer look at home as well.

>