Net Neutrality 2007
There's only about 5% of the country who even understands what the problem really is. Probably the same 5% that understands that television today is used by the big corporations primarily as a control grid to keep the population uninformed and docile. Entertainment comes in at a distant 2nd... Well they want the same thing for the internet. In order to do that they have to cut down on the traffic to alternative sites so that people are forced to get their information from the big money controlled sources. When that happens internet users will be just as uninformed as people who get their news from Fox...
The key thing to understand here is that this is not a result of free market forces, and thus it is impossible to take a libertarian approach on net neutrality. It is not capitalism at work here, it's actually more akin to corporatism. The laws are written by lobbyists paid for by the companies charging us an arm and a leg for internet service. It is ironic in a sadistic sort of way.
I guess they need even more money for lobbyists! The job of these lobbyists is simply to find ways to legislate out the competition. For years they've been successful at preventing municipalities from offering quality internet access as a utility (just like water or sewage). Now that crap is finally coming to an end, the battle lines are being redrawn around net neutrality.
Because the internet is so similar to the airwaves, it makes sense to emulate what was done in the past to protect the public airwaves. Those protections have been all but destroyed, especially over the past 10 years. As a result, only a handful of corporations control our media. That's why we're in Iraq right now, obviously. And if they had that same level of control over the internet, I bet Bush's approval rating would be still over 50%, and we'd be in Iran. Meanwhile, the Saudis would surely be sending insurgents into that country too. And we of course would call them al qaeda but ultimately do nothing about them. Because thanks to a controlled media, not enough people can make the logical connections between oil, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the phrase "eliminating the competition". With totally free and independent sources of information, it is easy to understand the motives of all the countries currently suspected of fueling the insurgency in Iraq. When you do that, you can only reach one logical conclusion: it's saudi arabia. And the evidence supports that logical conclusion, as it often does. But because the Bushes are in bed with the saudi royal family, there MUST be another reason.
There is something most people do not understand about media and politics. We look at Bush's approval rating and think "wow this is the worst president ever." (Statistically he does appear to be!) But that is not why he is polling so pooorly. It's because of the internet, and the proliferation of the alternative media. In the 70's, 80's, and most of the 90's, the media has had pretty much total control over what we think. But nowadays almost everyone is influenced to some degree by alternative sources that would have simply been stamped out in past decades. The truth is that even Ronald Reagan's approval rating would be under 33% if we had access to the same information then as we do now. That is why the "free internet" MUST be controlled, ie eliminated.
In order for that to happen, they cant just come out and say "we have to get rid of the alternative media". They have to come up with something abit more pallatable, some nice juicy piece of propaganda. (That's what makes politics so much fun!) What shall they do? What else... use their successes with television to help get control of the internet! And that's what they're doing. Everyone wants video! (Or so they say.) Youtube is leading the charge. All this bandwidth hogging video is going to force the net onto multiple tiers. Never mind the fact that we already pay outrageous amounts for bandwidth. Never mind the fact that if they took half the money they spend on lobbyists and dumped it into equipment upgrades, the problem would be solved. Never mind all of that, because that is a losing battle. This is why naive democrats and liberals often lose... they fight the battle on their opponents terms. This isn't about bandwidth or 5 million people downloading paris hilton videos or whatnot. If it was about any of that, then they would simply start charging end users by the Gigabyte. (The same way they already charge sites like Youtube!) It's about liberty. It's about stopping that one small independent source from getting his story out.
That's all they care about, and they will even lose money to see it through, because they know they can make so much more money by controlling information. And yes, their motto is "if you dont like it you can kiss our collective asses". They care not one bit if they lose subscribers, as long as they make more money off the subscribers they do keep. Unfortunately they usually do, because we americans are only too happy to take it up the butt, and pay to have it done.
The key thing to understand here is that this is not a result of free market forces, and thus it is impossible to take a libertarian approach on net neutrality. It is not capitalism at work here, it's actually more akin to corporatism. The laws are written by lobbyists paid for by the companies charging us an arm and a leg for internet service. It is ironic in a sadistic sort of way.
I guess they need even more money for lobbyists! The job of these lobbyists is simply to find ways to legislate out the competition. For years they've been successful at preventing municipalities from offering quality internet access as a utility (just like water or sewage). Now that crap is finally coming to an end, the battle lines are being redrawn around net neutrality.
Because the internet is so similar to the airwaves, it makes sense to emulate what was done in the past to protect the public airwaves. Those protections have been all but destroyed, especially over the past 10 years. As a result, only a handful of corporations control our media. That's why we're in Iraq right now, obviously. And if they had that same level of control over the internet, I bet Bush's approval rating would be still over 50%, and we'd be in Iran. Meanwhile, the Saudis would surely be sending insurgents into that country too. And we of course would call them al qaeda but ultimately do nothing about them. Because thanks to a controlled media, not enough people can make the logical connections between oil, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the phrase "eliminating the competition". With totally free and independent sources of information, it is easy to understand the motives of all the countries currently suspected of fueling the insurgency in Iraq. When you do that, you can only reach one logical conclusion: it's saudi arabia. And the evidence supports that logical conclusion, as it often does. But because the Bushes are in bed with the saudi royal family, there MUST be another reason.
There is something most people do not understand about media and politics. We look at Bush's approval rating and think "wow this is the worst president ever." (Statistically he does appear to be!) But that is not why he is polling so pooorly. It's because of the internet, and the proliferation of the alternative media. In the 70's, 80's, and most of the 90's, the media has had pretty much total control over what we think. But nowadays almost everyone is influenced to some degree by alternative sources that would have simply been stamped out in past decades. The truth is that even Ronald Reagan's approval rating would be under 33% if we had access to the same information then as we do now. That is why the "free internet" MUST be controlled, ie eliminated.
In order for that to happen, they cant just come out and say "we have to get rid of the alternative media". They have to come up with something abit more pallatable, some nice juicy piece of propaganda. (That's what makes politics so much fun!) What shall they do? What else... use their successes with television to help get control of the internet! And that's what they're doing. Everyone wants video! (Or so they say.) Youtube is leading the charge. All this bandwidth hogging video is going to force the net onto multiple tiers. Never mind the fact that we already pay outrageous amounts for bandwidth. Never mind the fact that if they took half the money they spend on lobbyists and dumped it into equipment upgrades, the problem would be solved. Never mind all of that, because that is a losing battle. This is why naive democrats and liberals often lose... they fight the battle on their opponents terms. This isn't about bandwidth or 5 million people downloading paris hilton videos or whatnot. If it was about any of that, then they would simply start charging end users by the Gigabyte. (The same way they already charge sites like Youtube!) It's about liberty. It's about stopping that one small independent source from getting his story out.
That's all they care about, and they will even lose money to see it through, because they know they can make so much more money by controlling information. And yes, their motto is "if you dont like it you can kiss our collective asses". They care not one bit if they lose subscribers, as long as they make more money off the subscribers they do keep. Unfortunately they usually do, because we americans are only too happy to take it up the butt, and pay to have it done.
posted by Iconoclast421 at 9:37 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home