A few years ago I was momentarily fooled by the "net neutrality" campaign. At that time I was surprised to see a coalition for net neutrality featuring liberal MoveOn.org and conservative Gun Owners of America. I just checked and this coalition is still in effect.

More recently I haven't been paying attention to the net neutrality issue. I was surprised yesterday to learn that President Obama is a big backer of net neutrality. Here's a 50-second video of Obama speaking at Google back on November 14, 2007, where he said, "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality."

In contrast, constitutionalist Congressman Ron Paul is opposed to net neutrality regulation of the Internet based on his opposition to government regulation and support for a free market economy, as you can see in this 56-second video:

See these two video clips from yesterday's Glenn Beck program for more information about the net neutrality issue and how it fits in with President Obama's agenda to regulate free speech on radio, TV, and the Internet:

Here are some revealing excerpts from "Net Neutrality enforcement may reach into your computer," dated October 21, 2009:

The Net Neutrality policy proposed by the Obama White House is set for a vote by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) on Thursday....

The vote on Thursday, which is expected to pass, will set up a show down between providers and the government. Once the provision is passed it will give the FCC the ability to begin formulating rules and readying them for the legislative process.

The following are some of the FCC's proposed rules:

• Consumers are entitled to access any legal Internet content
• Consumers are entitled to use any Internet applications or services
• Consumers are entitled to connect to any devices that won't harm the network
• The same rules apply to cable/DSL and wireless Internet
• Internet providers can't block or slow competitors' online services

So, the FCC will vote on Obama's net neutrality policy tomorrow.  Of course, the policy is expected to pass. The next step would be for the FCC to get congressional authorization to implement the net neutrality policy. And sure enough, a net neutrality bill has already been introduced in the House on July 31 as H.R. 3458. For detailed commentary on this bill read "Net Neutrality Regulation vs. Internet Freedom" by Adam de Angeli, posted on September 30.

The examples of the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules shown above don't seem immediately harmful to your Internet freedom until you realize that these rules would be enforced by the federal government. This would be the beginning of a government takeover of the Internet. As mentioned on the Beck TV show linked to above, it wouldn't be long until the government would be regulating content. We're already hearing repeatedly from Obama and his administration that the Internet and blogosphere are rampant with misleading information. We already know where this type of regulation would lead by looking at how China regulates the Internet over there.

It doesn't seem possible that the tens of millions of Americans that use the Internet daily would put up with a government takeover of the Internet. I sure hope they don't. It should be an epic struggle.

Nonetheless, just in case the American public doesn't acquiesce to strict government control of the Internet, there's a bill in Congress (S. 773), sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller, to give the President complete control of the Internet to preserve cybersecurity in case of "emergency." Here's an excerpt from the bill:

The President ... may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network....

Here's a video clip of Senator Rockefeller from earlier this year bemoaning the invention of the Internet and discussing the need for cybersecurity for the Internet:

I know I'm going to be getting more up to speed on this issue in the days and weeks to come. I expect this Internet freedom issue to be one of the hottest issues during the next couple years.

It's a little late to mount a campaign to influence the FCC vote tomorrow. I know some others have been working on this already. However, we must fiercely oppose H.R. 3458 and any other net neutrality bills that might be introduced later this session. Click here to email your representatives and senators right now in opposition to a government takeover of the Internet in the name of net neutrality.

The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to establish a government that would secure our God-given rights. If we are to preserve our right to free speech, enough Americans need to work together to get a majority of constitutionalists (who respect the original intent of the Founders) elected to Congress. Short of that, we'll lose our right of free speech on the Internet and everywhere else as well.
 

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (13)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

RP said:

Regulation cancels neutrality An open Internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail. Why does neutrality need to be regulated? Doesn't REGULATION always result in things being a bit less open? neutrality - tolerance attributable to a lack of involvement regulation - the state of being controlled or governed It seems the term "neutrality regulation" is an oxymoron.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 21, 2009
Votes: +5

Still Free said:

	Right on, RP! Why does neutrality need to be regulated? IT DOESN'T ... Doesn't REGULATION always result in things being a bit less open? ABSOLUTELY ... THAT'S WHY THE INSIDERS WANT IT ... SO THEY CAN CONTINUE THEIR BACK ROOM DEALS AND SLEIGHT OF HAND TRICKS. IT'S ALL ABOUT CONTROL ...
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 22, 2009
Votes: +1

Conservatists intelligence (or lack thereof), Lowly rated comment [Show]

Alvin691 said:

Reply to Conservatists... I am not surprised that a European does not understand conservativism (the correct spelling) as you have lived under generations of government control. We understand Marxism, Communism, and Socialism very well since we have been paying attention to our history book and our neighbors. Our founding documents separated us from from the same tyrany that you embrace. We are still, and will remain, the shining light. While it is a shame some of our citizens had to learn the hard way, we will recover from this current administration and group of non-representing representatives to regain our individual rights and self-independence.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 24, 2009
Votes: +7

smasi said:

More REGULATION? Lets regulate it! We can right Laws that would enable us to use TAXPAYER money to pay large corporations to install broad band internet access into every community. We could probably somehow classify this as generating "Green Jobs"......somehow This would pacify the Unions for a little while....maybe Then we can use TAXPAYER money to buy computers from the companies that lobbied us. For all the people who have been persecuted over the years. We'll give them a computer and then they will vote for us again... Then we can buy them access from the companies that lobbied us! Then we can subsidize the entire thing because its a "NET LOSER" from the get go. Now that the system is in place then we can auction off the "Rights" via our "regulation" to access the entire "American Market" This is win win. With increased tax revenue we could make the government even BIGGER! Think of all the new "Internet TAX" legislation we could right. What about all of the Oversight jobs it would create......Don't forget the "Internet Law" industry. Also if there is more regulation I'm sure we could make it so we control what the "people" are allowed to see and say to one another. This would prevent any uprisings among the subjects. "Be wary....those American Taxpayers have a history of this kind of stuff" Also after a little while we could make it so that religious views and websites would not be allowed......How?.......I dunno we'll say that its unconstitutional or something. Worry about that later.....The important thing is we'll be in control of the internet for the American public....and if they don't like it what are they going to do when we shut it off on them. Get the information from the Radio we control...or the Television we control........will they call each other on cell phones which we control, or send eachother letters through the post office we control?

report abuse vote down vote up

October 24, 2009
Votes: +6

aanderson said:

Not all regulation is evil As JBS promotes education please do your own research on the pros and cons of network neutrality. While the prevailing sentiment here is that all regulations under all circumstances is bad I personally disagree with this point of view. I believe that the most important aspect of Capitalism that benefits us all is competition. As with all competition there must be rules and enforcement. It is my personal view that only the large crony corporations that fully benefit from lobbying governments for deregulation. This is certainly my prespective on the Gilded Age, the buildup to the Great Depression, the SNL scandal, and the current finiancial system crisis.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 27, 2009
Votes: -1

aanderson said:

Please perform your own research on this topic Back to the topic at hand, I am in the IT industry and I have experience with many of the technologies that make up the Internet. It is my opinion that the large telcos are seeing their revenue drop from phone lines as Internet convergence and wireless phones are becoming more prevailent. The telcos have little interest in having the Internet access market become a commodities market so they want to setup toll roads on the Internet and control how people use the Internet to maximize their profits. Instead of investing in research and capacity to improve bandwidth and reduce latency they have monopoly access in many of the regions they service it is easier to exploit their near monopoly position to extort profit from consumers and suppliers. Please take the time to read the many public contents at the government network neutrality site http://openinternet.ideascale.com/

report abuse vote down vote up

October 27, 2009
Votes: -1

aanderson said:

Keep this in mind When investigating network neutrality please keep these points in mind: 1) The content (i.e. data) that flows through the network providers infrastructure is private property owned by the senders and receives. Senders and receivers who pay for their access should decide what data is important, not an authoritarian Internet provider 2) While one may believe the that there is a free market for Internet access consisting of only a couple major companies that have physical lines in the area, the networking filtering that the telcos will implement in the absence of network neutrality regulations will be done on the Internet backbone far away from the supervision and control of content providers and consumers. 3) Large telecomunication technology providers have invested large sums of money into developing Internet filtering and delaying technologies that are used in many authoritarian societies around the world censor and supress dissent. These companies would like nothing better to sell those technologies here and without network neutrality regulations the telcoms will do this to boost profit 4) The large telcos have received litterally hundreds of billions of subsidies to build out high speed internet access and abjectly failed to meet their obligations. Factor in the subsidies they have received over the past centuary for phone service they are far from independent self made corporations 5) If network neutrality is not enforced then because it will be profitable Internet to do so providers will focus all their energies on catering to the incumbent content providers and will filter or block small and independent content providers like JBS.ORG One can expect the existing main stream media paradigm to replicated on the Internet.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 27, 2009
Votes: +0

the fall of our country said:

	... anyone ever think about how b.o. is just a puppet for the billionairs setting up the new world order and wallstreet owning the country? do your homework people, it's vital to what's left of our freedom !!!!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

November 03, 2009
Votes: +3

Bryan C. said:

... I can understand if you are afraid new regulation may lead to government control of the internet, as I happen to feel the same way. So why don't we demand a stipulation that says internet service providers, along with any branch of the federal/state government, are prohibited from making any assertion as to what can be transmitted to and from users, with concern to only legality? Why lose our heads over what may come when nothing has been done? The fact that people would rather deem this a Socialist/Marxist/Communist plot than what it really is, a step to ensure that the internet remains a PUBLIC RIGHT, scares the living shit out of me. Yes, unlike some of you, the words Communism/Marxism/Socialism don't scare me, as they are simply a different blueprint to governing. That isn't to say that I want them here in America, but I refuse to lose objectivity over my own reservations. Unfortunately, the opportunist aspects of the government and media have realized that people listen when they speak of danger instead of truth. In the end, this debate, along with every other prevailing debate today, will miss the bottom line. The bottom line of this in particular? The internet should be considered a crucial tool in ensuring a legitimate Democracy, with every citizen being given the opportunity to engage(with what company and in what way being the individuals concern.) A platform that allows any citizen to converse and exchange to the rest of the world allows transparency of the world itself.

report abuse vote down vote up

November 07, 2009
Votes: +0

Eagle said:

As Nero fiddled, Rome burned! Will we allow this insult to happen? Hear that drum in the background, slowly beating but getting closer/louder? That is a call to action for patriots to once again ensure they are safe from this new form of government tyranny. It's powers are far too easy to abuse, and too tempting! The "handwriting is on the wall" in this bill; who is courageous enough to call-out our "representatives" on this? WHEN THE VOTE IS COUNTED, THE LIST OF SUPPORTERS will be revealing once and forever. And these new POWERS will become next to impossible to ever be changed. THINK ABOUT IT! While the issues addressed are valid concerns, of far greater concern should be the additional powers granted SOLELY to the Executive Branch. We should be very, very concerned about these particular powers. They are too easy to abuse, and far more tempting to do so that all the gold in Fort Knox!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 09, 2009
Votes: +2

nunya said:

... The government will decide what is legal and illegal on the internet and allow users to only traffic legal media. Are you kidding me? This is not about providing the internet to all people for free. This is about controlling information. If the gov does not want to give people computers who cant afford them as the next step, what is the point? The big bad internet corps are not controlling info, and in fact are providing the people a much higher quality and efficient service than the gov ever could. Same goes for healthcare and green energy. Think about who stands to make a ton of money if these programs are implemented. It is not just the gov. Impeach OBAMA NOW!

report abuse vote down vote up

November 25, 2009
Votes: +1

Anon said:

	Legit? Most of your info came from FOX news which I hardly find to be a legitimate source for news.
	report abuse vote down vote up

December 05, 2009
Votes: -2