THE SAPIENT SPARROW: conservatism for commoners

"What has always made the State a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it his heaven."–Holderlin


computer monitor

Over at American Thinker, Janet Levy wrote the following concerning “Net Neutrality”.  It is one of the best summaries of the “Act” that I have seen.  After you have read it, check out this post at American Thinker by Jack Kemp.  Be sure and follow his links.  They are sobering.

‘The “Internet Freedom Preservation Act”

Also referred to as “Net Neutrality,” this proposal represents an unprecedented expansion of Internet regulation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the exact opposite of Internet freedom. It would allow the FCC to regulate the speed and pricing of traffic across public and private broadband networks. It would create a bureaucratic structure to control competition and customer service. It would mandate what data companies can or cannot prioritize.

Further, it raises privacy concerns because it will enable the federal government to track users. Consumers have been well-served by an open Internet system in which private sector competition and innovation has nurtured an environment that anyone can use to develop new applications and content.  This freedom will be stifled rather than “preserved” with the unbridled expansion of federal government power over the Internet that will be put in place with “Net Neutrality.”‘

Sparrow should note that the FCC voted today to begin writing “net neutrality” regulations.  You can read about the vote here at “Breitbart”.  At the same site, there are also related articles available.

There is another site linked here from “The Hill” that has some good insights from Representative Blackburn about “net neutrality” and what it could mean to the creative community of actors, musicians, etc.-worth a read.

Finally, the FCC has opened a site for public comment about this issue.  When I commented yesterday regarding the vote today, it looked like the comments were running about 8:2 against voting to regulate.  So, commenting may be more an exercise that gives us an outlet than truly being influential.  However, I think it is important that they hear from the public who oppose inflicting a type of “fairness doctrine” on the internet.  Who knows, it could make a degree of difference in the way the regulations are written.


Filed under: liberal activism, media, U.S. GOVERNMENT, , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: