Rush: FCC trying to keep internet from becoming like talk radio and Fox News

Posted by The Right Scoop on December 21st, 2010 in Politics | 21 Comments

“They are worried to death that the Internet is gonna become the next conservative talk radio and Fox News, and that’s what they’re not gonna permit. That’s what so-called net neutrality is all about.”

People mocked Sarah Palin for saying that there would end up being ‘death panels’ because of ObamaCare. But when you ration care, that has to happen in the end. Even the deficit commission said in order for ObamaCare to be viable, it would need death panels.

Now Rush is telling you what Net Neutrality is all about. I’ve said before that it’s baby steps to an end goal of silencing dissent that gets in the legislative way of big government. If you don’t believe me, go back and listen to a frustrated Sen. Rockefeller suggest that the FCC should shut down Fox News! You think he’s in the minority of Democrats? Even one of the two FCC Commissioners that voted against Net Neutrality said this:

“[The FCC's action] is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure,” said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn’t support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet “because it wants to, not because it needs to.”

Got it? There’s no problem here that needs fixing. Well there isn’t unless you count this, this, and this.

Listen to Rush’s full audio below:

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

Anonymous

FCC Defying Congress And The Courts
Anonymous

it’s the same as campaign finance – just as it looks like the Conservatives have caught up in the game, the progressives want to change the rules.
Anonymous

This is psychotic.

Net Neutrality =/= taking control of the internet.

For that matter, regulation =/= control.

What net neutrality would do is ensure that NOBODY, including the federal government, could take control of the internet. It would ensure, ironically, that the internet remained a FREE MARKET for ideas, rather than allowing content to be controlled by a select group of people (who are even less accountable to the public than the government). Without REGULATION, the internet will, in fact, be controlled by a small group of people who WOULD theoretically, be able to control content and stifle the speech of some in favor of the speech of others. And it’s not like the ISP market has such a low barrier for entry that if providers started throttling bandwidth for “non-preferred” traffic someone would be able to offer a neutral service in its stead.

Vetteman

Just like Obama-care is going to ride in, and make our health care a magical Utopia? Give me a break…
Extremely Right

How’s the weather in Fantasyland today?

Anonymous

So what aspects of the Internet does net neutrality – an issue that some of us have cared about for YEARS – threaten? Be specific and give sourced examples, please.

Extremely Right

Well you are obviously sold on net neutrality but here’s a quick link. I don’t think it’s much of a stretch to say that Federal regulation of the Internet will be a bad thing. And no matter how many links I could provide, I’d have more luck getting the KKK to contribute to the United Negro College Fund.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/12/21/need-care-net-neutrality/

Anonymous

Nothing contained in this article is actually relevant to the issue at hand.

I firmly believe that ISPs should be able to charge you for the total amount of bandwidth that you access and they should be able to throttle bandwidth for users that use too much. Net neutrality doesn’t really threaten that at all (if we had a better internet infrastructure in place this would be less of a problem in the first place, but I digress. Just realize that compared to most of the world, internet in the US is S-L-O-W as F-&-*-%).

What net neutrality prohibits is bandwidth discrimination. Without it, ISPs WILL be able to interfere with internet entrepreneurship and kill innovations that brought us things like facebook, google, wordpress etc. etc. etc. We already tried the whole “walled garden” internet anyways – it was called AOL, and it sucked.

Why do you have a kneejerk reaction to everything that the government theoretically tries to do to help preserve and secure our freedoms? I know you think regulation is burdensome, but do you know anything about the what the country was like in the years in between the industrial revolution and the creation of the federal regulatory mechanism?

Anonymous

When did you work for AOL? You said “we” as if you had a stake in AOL.
http://twitter.com/JoshuaLKahn Joshua Kahn

It’s the ISP’s product. And it’s working. They’re providing competition to the cable companies, and competing with each other. It’s way better than when there was just cable. The Democrats want to solve another problem that doesn’t exist.
Anonymous

Yes Ii do, I lived in a good bit of it. Before regulation of many things. We had true freedom, low taxes, then the govt got involved, and it takes more than 1000 a week to buy what 50 bucks used to buy. You now need air bags, seat belts, kids cant ride in the back of a pickup, We could drill for oil wherever it was found, You didnt have frivolous lawsuits every where, If your kids screwed up they got a spanking, Most politicians represented the people, not the bankers, and the main purpose of Net neutrality is the ability to tax it, so they have the money to regulate it.

This from an old man that has been battling these idiots for many decades.

Anonymous

1) The years in between the industrial revolution and the creation of the regulatory mechanism describes a period of time between the 1870s and the 1910s, and I assume you’re not talking about that.
2) “true freedom, low taxes, then the govt got involved, and it takes more than 1000 a week to buy what 50 bucks used to buy” – Taxes are the lowest they’ve been in nearly 100 years and inflation is a completely different issue.
3) “You now need air bags, seat belts, kids cant ride in the back of a pickup,” most people consider seat belts and air bags to be a good thing.
4) “We could drill for oil wherever it was found” – yes, because families all had access to the equipment necessary to drill for oil. If you stumble upon oil – which pretty much never happens anymore – you can still sell it for a ton of money.
5) “You didnt have frivolous lawsuits every where” – not the government’s fault.
6) “If your kids screwed up they got a spanking” – Sounds like you’re looking to blame childhood development specialists, not the government. At any rate, you can still spank your kids if you want to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Corporal_punishment_in_the_United_States.svg)
7) “Most politicians represented the people, not the bankers” – ahahahahahahhahahhahahahhahhhahhahahahahhahaha
hhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahah
ahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahha
hhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhaha
hahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhah
ahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahah
hahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahha
hahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahh
ahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhah
ahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahha…
*ahem*
…hahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahaha
hahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhah
hhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahah
ahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhaha
hahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahh
ahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhah
ahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahha
hahahahhahahahhahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahaha
hhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahah
ahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahha
hhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhaha
hahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahahhahhh
ahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahah
hahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahaha
hahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhah
hhahhahahahahhahahahhahahhahhhahhahahahahhahah
ahha

They’ve ALWAYS represented powerful interests (Ulysses S. Grant, anyone? What about Boss Tweed?), and deregulation will only make them MORE indebted to powerful interests. “And the main purpose of Net neutrality is the ability to tax it, so they have the money to regulate it.” – tax what? Internet commerce? They could do that without net neutrality. On what do you base this assertion?

Anonymous

Milton Friedman
“If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there’d be a shortage of sand”

Paulchri

All these people that have a problem with government controlling the internet are just a bunch of conspiracy theorists. There is no plot to take control of content and force certain sites offline, etc. The government loves us, and wants us to be free. If it could just hold us in its arms and kiss and hug us all day, they would.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QHIB3HSTHJ6B7QZE6HGU6AMTYE Josh

The Internet was invented by the military. I say the FCC can fight them over control.

Anonymous

Invented by nerds from Stanford FOR the military.

Tyler

Rush had an interesting caller shortly after this today who managed to compare the thinking of big government politicians to inmates at the county jail he works at. That would still make a pretty good open thread of sorts, if you wanted to do it…but I also know it’s getting late.
http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth

Rush is completely wrong on what Net Neutrality is and what the new regulations call for. “Lack of bias”. Yeah he hasn’t been following things.

Those of us who have been following the issue of net neturality — hint: the idea’s been floating around since about 2003 or 2004 — know what it’s really about: ISPs discriminating against certain data coming across their networks. You can blame Comcast for this debate, as they have been consistently and predictably anti-neutral with regard to the Internet. In fact, in the net neutrality debates, Comcast is one of the first names that comes up.

For broadband in most areas, you have only two options: cable or DSL. Some places have only one option (i.e. my parents). If both the cable and DSL providers engage in bandwidth discrimination, you’re screwed.

What Rush thinks “net neutrality” means — and it’s the definition all of you are buying because to you it seems like a relatively new idea, not something floating around for more than half a decade — is applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet, which, even if the FCC were to attempt to do that, it would be impossible to enforce. Plus do you really think Dems want the Fairness Doctrine applied to… say… the Huffington Post or DailyKos?

las

You misunderstand… Huffington Post, Kos, WaPo, phishwrap of record NYTimes… they are on the right side of the issue. In other words, they are already balanced and fair. They don’t need no sninkin’ Net Neutrality regulations applied to them. The rules won’t apply to them except perhaps to MSNBC as a sop thrown out to pretend trumpet how even handed they are. Broadband discrimination is all smoke and mirrors.

This IS the issue, using bandwidth discrimination to bring “neutrality” through the back door against the usual suspects: that evil FOX and Beck and Rush.

Gone are the simple times after the Fairness Doctrine was eviscerated by Reagan and the 1st Amendment ruled once again. The Julian Asange debacle may just be the type of “event” where the new FCC regulations can be applied to shut down internet sites for national security perhaps combined with “hate speech” sanctions embedded into the latest defense appropriates bill. This wrangling of corporations to protect market share in the broadband battle is simply a pretext for the FCC Marxists to game the system.

Paulchri

I listened to a couple of experts on the Alex Jones show talk about how content will be controlled through the big providers and web services such as google, yahoo, etc. Apparently these companies are already spying on people for the government. (mainstream news reports) It won’t be much different than main stream media when they get their hands on it. The alternative media will be drowned out and blocked somehow. I don’t remember all the details.

http://www.kennethballard.com Kenneth

Rush is completely wrong on what Net Neutrality is and what the new regulations call for. “Lack of bias”. Yeah he hasn’t been following things.

Those of us who have been following the issue of net neturality — hint: the idea’s been floating around since about 2003 or 2004 — know what it’s really about: ISPs discriminating against certain data coming across their networks. You can blame Comcast for this debate, as they have been consistently and predictably anti-neutral with regard to the Internet. In fact, in the net neutrality debates, Comcast is one of the first names that comes up.

For broadband in most areas, you have only two options: cable or DSL. Some places have only one option (i.e. my parents). If both the cable and DSL providers engage in bandwidth discrimination, you’re screwed.

What Rush thinks “net neutrality” means — and it’s the definition all of you are buying because to you it seems like a relatively new idea, not something floating around for more than half a decade — is applying the Fairness Doctrine to the Internet, which, even if the FCC were to attempt to do that, it would be impossible to enforce. Plus do you really think Dems want the Fairness Doctrine applied to… say… the Huffington Post or DailyKos?

Rush: FCC trying to keep internet from becoming like talk radio and Fox News

awesome meter

subscribe to us

Places of Interest

Admin

archives

required viewing