With 'Nothing Less Than Fate of the Internet' at Stake, Federal Court Told Why FCC's Attack on Net Neutrality So Dangerous
Verizon again—oh my. Let us not forget that it was VERIZON in the middle of one of the CA wild fires that stopped firefighters access unless they PAID a higher amount. Net Neutrality is FREE SPEECH! The rest is corporate greed, and the death of innovation in America!
Well that AJIT PAI -----he loves that cash!
And his FREEDOM hate is cruel and rash!
FREE SPEECH is NET NEUTRALITY
FREE SPEECH is our REALITY!
Without it—communication is just TRASH! : 0
There is no fair argument against net neutrality. Why should a network provider make some users response slower while speeding up those who pay them extra money.For common users like you and me the result of repealing net neutrality will be higher costs and reduced access to small businesses who can not afford extra Internet charges. Verizon and AT&T and others should provide universal access to everyone at a consistent low price. That just isn’t being done. At the same time access and response should be the same for all content providers and all consumers.
What if cell providers charged more to access a local business than to access Amazon. The telecommunication act provides for consistent charges and consistent access. Why ahouldn’t the Internet providers be forced to do the same.
There is not one thing in the entire Universe that holds value to a corporation except money. Their reach goes into every branch of government, every agency, every department, every single entity whose sole purpose was supposed to be the protection of the American Citizen, that is protection from the government. Now there is no ally within the government to trust, it might just as well be the Colombian Government, Or the Brazilian one. If the internet is preserved from these NAZI SS scumbags for the American people, it will be a true miracle.
Yea, this story’s a little confusing.
“the judges, who questioned repeatedly how the agency’s decision might affect first responders”
Worded as though it hasn’t happened already.
According to such economists as the late Milton Friedman (ptui!), that IS the divinely ordained purpose of a corporation, to enrich its owners-but-not-managers, who likewise have no stake in whatever else that corporation does, and who fail to understand how it affects them as members of society
Milton Friedman is a complete quack, who’s Chicago school of economics, embraced Freidrich Hayek’s work “The Road to Serfdom”; the laughing stock in economics of over 30 years; a period which under his rivals famously successful economic paradigm, (John Maynard Keynes), encompassed the rise of the US out of the depression to become a global superpower while creating an unbelievably strong middle class. This Economic model rebuilt Europe and Japan after the war into powerful economic centers, achievements both unprecedented and never duplicated by Friedman’s elitist dreams of Feudalism. Friedman’s economics coincide exactly with Americas right wing takeover, collapse of the middle class, and concurrent ascension to fascism
This is about a two way street where citizens get to respond to government,
to media – to whomever – which has never been possible on this level before.
AND, it has been forcing a change on media - forcing it to acknowledge what is
being said on “social media.” Media is being forced to open up its limited list of
subjects – forced to acknowledge the “Bernie Sanders launching of a political revolution.”
Though they don’t very often credit him for it.
And it is where one commenter gets to see the comments of millions of others
and recognizes that this is a liberal nation. That we do not want endless wars
and that we don’t want a MIC. That we all want Medicare4All, Social Security
and a return to the New Deal.
Where is a united response from citizens to this overturning by the FCC?
I don’t see it anywhere. We are not alone in paying the bill for internet – we are millions
and millions and millions who have a choice and who can respond by pulling the plug
until the decision is reversed.
If you don’t fight back, you will still have an internet, but it will likely be one which
depowers those paying for it.
What is our response to this – isn’t anyone willing to sign a promise to pull the plug
on Verizon and Comcast if this happens. And it is happening for their benefit.
And for the benefit of the right wing/fascists trying to control us.
Yeah, but you’re talking reality here. Friedman and Hayek were economists, so in the natural order of things they were bound to imagine six impossible things every day before breakfast! But seriously, when I was doing my graduate work in the late 90s in my 50s – I got a late start – I had professors who believed Hayek was next to God, and when I was teaching at a community college less than five years ago, the idols of the best-read instructor in the department were Friedman and Keynes!?! (She was from India, and had at some point slipped from an appreciation of paradox to outright contradiction.)
Nature with nurture: Hayek was born in 1899 so came of age in the bloody turmoil between communists and other factions in impoverished Eastern Europe in the aftermath of WW I. So as many people do he concluded that socialism was the work of Satan, and as many people do never recognized his error.
Fight for the Future sez:
“Ajit Pai ignored overwhelming expert testimony, mountains of evidence, small business owners, veterans, and millions of public comments in favor of net neutrality and pushed through the repeal anyway.”
In other words: he did the job for which he was hired.
If socialism is associated with Satan, does that mean it’s opposite , (presumably free market capitalism), is to be associated with God. It would seem so, wouldn’t it, since the churches and their flocks in the US are so religiously behind Republicans, who incessantly espouse free markets, (but still endorse petroleum subsidy, tariffs, prohibit Tesla motors from selling their cars in Red states, and blocking generic drug imports from other nations). Of course Republicans today are clearly fascist, and the most famous fascists were NAZI’s, which was originally an acronym that stood for a socialist party. NAZI’s were never really socialist, but communists were never really communist, democracies were never really democracies, and free markets were never really free. So much for monikers anyway. As for well read professors from India who like Keynes and Friedman - what else do they like - the caste systems perhaps, elitism, indentured servitude?
“If socialism is associated with Satan, does that mean it’s opposite , (presumably free market capitalism), is to be associated with God.”
Apparently it did to Hayek, and a lot of people who were addicted to simple solutions to complex problems tagged along!
Great comment–I salute you!
Keynesians vs Hayekians…the eternal debate. Glad to see this digressing string of exchanges. Little people take up their particular off-shoot inquiries without much time to do so. A smattering of topics keeps bringing up von Hayek in my recent experience…the one I remember at the moment was Stephen Cohen’s last podcast share on fb’s page for American Committee for East West Accord. I mean just going back to that era.
Green New Dealers…to begin things right now…I think will have to know pretty well this debate…if they aim to start working on trade reform right now…cause talk of another New Deal someday is fine…but we have to begin somewhere now if the setting is to be set. As per Globa Trade Watch.
Yes, it’s good that people with some background are talking. Can you expand a little on that post? I’m not sure I’m understanding the clipped sentences correctly.
I think the fundamental economic issue is a cluster of false assumptions around the classical notion that markets are self-correcting so generate more good for more people in the absence of regulation (laissez-faire, “let it be”).
The very term neo-liberal refers to liberal economics espoused early on in another age by Adam Smith. He spoke of an “invisible hand” which supposedly corrected the market. The issue was that such “corrections” are devastating, particularly to the proletariat. Keynes took the approach of regulating, (this part i’ve greatly simplified for the purposes of brevity), so as to even out the bumps. Hayek hates regulation and is more akin to Smith, as is Friedman.
Yes, p. 485 in the authoritative Cannan edition of Smith’s Inquiry, The only place in 900 pages that it is mentioned, along with the notion–absurd for a professor of moral philosophy even then–that the common interest is best served ONLY by individuals pursuing their own narrow self-interests.
Aside from those gaffes and a few others, markets free of the influences of government and the guilds WAS liberal in the late 18th century!
Yes, I think you’re right. After Cohen I thought these would bore me to death (previous podcasts keep roll’n…or continue playing in sequence)…
But every third one was interesting, and they sort of plunged me into the era (I let’em go cause I was either sleeping or doing other things).
If you go back farther than Hayek, seems to me austerity economics…the various austerity paradigms proposed…are so totally removed from our world today that they almost don’t apply or relate. But in the background of Friedman you do find Hayek.
The struggle for Green New Deal or for DiEM25 really IMO has to begin now. Media being what it is, it is my sort-of-my-theory that we in America (for example) can’t even communicate to (for example) Europe our idea of where we want to go unless there is a firm message sent, like a real modified trade deal. Otherwise media will revise, dilute, and interpolate what the people are saying…what they want.
I’ve shared on fb two of your comments and two from Adam. Hope my intro to’em will generate interest, but that’s most likely putting too much faith in my intro.
Sorry…should have been sort-of-my-theory