Paranoid American Spectator claims "net neutrality" part of plot to take over Internets

[jefferson_dem]

:rofl: Now this is Obama Derangement Syndrome in the extreme.

Washington Prowler
Obama Bytes
By The Prowler on 9.21.09 @ 6:09AM

SO LONG, FREEDOM

<SNIP>

"We couldn't give them a Guantanamo shut down, or ending the Patriot Act, so this is the immediate payoff to MoveOn and Free Press and the those guys who worked so hard for us during the campaign," says a White House source. "Getting 'net neutrality' codified and under out control was at the top of their list of things for us to do."

<SNIP>

"For them to say that this isn't government regulation, that this is just about fairness and giving everyone the same thing, is just not true," says a Republican Energy and Commerce staffer, who has been working on the issue of "net neutrality" for several years. "Someone has to be monitoring all those networks, all that activity to make sure the networks remain 'neutral.' Who is that going to be? Free Press? George Soros?"

In fact, a representative of the left-wing organization known as Free Press will be present at the Genachowski speech. Free Press, which continues to stand by former White House Obama adviser Van Jones, who served its board, shares its roots with the MoveOn organization, and has received funds from George Soros and funds from senior Google executives, actually wrote large portions of the Markey-Eshoo net neutrality bill, which was introduced in Congress just before the summer recess in August. "Free Press got caught red-handed, when they put the bill up on their website and time stamp on the copy indicated they'd received it long before most people knew the bill was being introduced," says the House committee source.

While left-wing advocates claim that "net neutrality" is nothing more than a policy that ensures that broadband network operators can't take advantage of the networks they operate by offering different services to their customers, like a special movie streaming service or a unique online video chat service, without providing the same deals to every other video streaming company or online chat company.

"It's a difficult concept for regular folks to get because it's a technical issue that sounds harmless," says a Federal Communications Commissions staffer. "'Neutrality' sounds like something harmless, but what people need to understand is that if they are afraid of what would happen to their health care if Obamacare was passed, they should be downright horrified about what would happen to their Internet if Obama's 'net neutrality' were passed. It will create traffic jams online, make it harder for folks to watch streaming videos without delays and glitches, and spam and online threats will be more common."

<SNIP>

http://spectator.org/archives/2009/09/21/obama-bytes

[babylonsister]

1. They really are intent on working against their best interests, aren't they. nt

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

2. It's another attempt to take something good and define it as something bad

In about 20 minutes all the morans will be carrying signs that say "NO TO NET NEUTRALITY NOW!!!!"

And once again they will succeed. Those types of people never read or research for themselves, it will be enough that Fox, Limbaugh Beck and Hannity define it for them.