RunRyder RC
WATCH
 1 page 719 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Court: No Internet Control for FCC
04-07-2010 10:03 PM  8 years agoPost 1
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Court: No Internet Control for FCC

April 6, 2010

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The regime is not going to be happy about this next story. "The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. A three-judge panel in Washington, DC unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast, which had taken measures to slow BitTorrent transfers and had voluntarily ended them earlier that year," and the FCC didn't like that. They don't want Internet providers being able to regulate any aspect of who gets to see what via their website. There's a lot of confusion about what net neutrality is. I remember I had a conversation not long ago with a high government official about this. I explained on the program here what it is. And I was bombarded with e-mail from, "You don't know what you're talking about. Net neutrality has nothing to do with what you're talking about." And it does. Basically, Internet providers are supposed to treat all Internet content equally.

In the case of Comcast, the government didn't like the fact that they did not make BitTorrent available to their subscribers. BitTorrent is a file transfer protocol that huge files, some of them not legal in terms of copyright and this sort of thing, are downloaded and uploaded and so forth, and it poses virus risks and a number of other things. And so Comcast, for whatever reason, if not those, "We don't want to have BitTorrent available here," for a whole bunch of reasons. And the FCC, "You can't do that," so they went to court over it. The court is saying the FCC "has failed to tie its assertion" of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider's network management practices, wrote Judge David Tatel ... Even though liberal advocacy groups had urged the FCC to take action against Comcast, the agency's vote to proceed was a narrow 3-2, with the dissenting commissioners predicting at the time that it would not hold up in court. FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell, a Republican, said at the time that the FCC's ruling was unlawful and the lack of legal authority 'is sure to doom this order on appeal.'"

Now, there are great ramifications for this. This decision could doom something recently announced by Julius Genachowski, the new chairman of the FCC, which was a national broadband policy. Right now the FCC does not have any regulatory authority over the Internet, and they don't have any over cable TV. They have it over broadcast. They have it over-the-air cell phone transmissions, television and that kind of thing, but they don't have it over the Internet and yet they asserted control. And the court said, "You don't have regulatory authority here. There's no law granting you this." Well, that will be taken care of pretty soon because the regime wants to control everything, particularly Internet content. They want to make sure that what has happened here to talk radio does not happen to the Internet. They want to make sure that their point of view doesn't get snuffed out by the marketplace, which it has here on talk radio. Despite their best efforts, liberals simply have failed to score anything significant in talk radio on the air, and the regime is very unhappy about that.

There have been numerous attempts by some of the most supposedly competent, superstar liberals in the history of the country, and still, they get an asterisk as a rating point. Look at CNN. One day a couple weeks ago in the 25 to 54 demographic, Anderson Cooper, 25,000 viewers in an hour. Twenty-five thousand people in the whole country, that's all, were watching CNN. My friends, I, on this program, have 25,000 viewers at the corner of 60th and Madison in New York City. The regime does not want the same thing happening to the Internet, and the net neutrality was to make sure that Internet providers made equal content available to anybody visiting through their portal.
END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/da...107.member.html

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-07-2010 11:01 PM  8 years agoPost 2
TwistedRotor

rrApprentice

Yup

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So, Rush is a fan of big business restricting your freedoms and against the government trying to preserve them? Am I reading this right?

BTW, who cares about ratings (other than the people who don't get journalism awards and the people who watch them). This ratings thing is the equivalent of the "Over a Billion Sold" signs at McDonalds. No matter how many are sold, it's still crap food.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 12:02 AM  8 years agoPost 3
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

So, Rush is a fan of big business restricting your freedoms and against the government trying to preserve them? Am I reading this right?
Nope. Rush is against big government. Period.
BTW, who cares about ratings (other than the people who don't get journalism awards and the people who watch them). This ratings thing is the equivalent of the "Over a Billion Sold" signs at McDonalds. No matter how many are sold, it's still crap food.
Rush's wallet cares about ratings.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 12:14 AM  8 years agoPost 4
TwistedRotor

rrApprentice

Yup

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Nope. Rush is against big government. Period.
Gotcha, Rush is all for corporations restricting your rights and big government not protecting them. Thanks for the clarification.
Rush's wallet cares about ratings.
What a good reason to listen to that Big Mac.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 12:18 AM  8 years agoPost 5
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Gotcha, Rush is all for corporations restricting your rights and big government not protecting them. Thanks for the clarification.

And how does Rush say that corporations are restricting anyones rights?

I am really curious how you feel that way.
What a good reason to listen to that Big Mac.
I can't speak for others. I listen to him because he calls the left what it is for America. He's right most all the time.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 12:55 AM  8 years agoPost 6
TwistedRotor

rrApprentice

Yup

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

And how does Rush say that corporations are restricting anyones rights?

I am really curious how you feel that way
I would think that since Rush is talking about "net neutrality" he would understand what it is. I would also think that since he knows what it is he'd be a fan of anyone (even a government agency) trying to lift restrictions imposed by Comcast or any ISP. The reason I feel this way is because if I want to download from a bit torrent then I should be able to. What's next, is Comcast going to restrict access to RunRyder?

If he's right all the time, then where are his journalism awards or even nominations?

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 01:13 AM  8 years agoPost 7
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I would think that since Rush is talking about "net neutrality" he would understand what it is.
In the first paragraph on the thread opener, Rush described "Net Neutrality":

Basically, Internet providers are supposed to treat all Internet content equally.

The Feds did not like that. So, the Fed took Com Cast to court. Here is the result:

"The Federal Communications Commission does not have the legal authority to slap Net neutrality regulations on Internet providers, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday. A three-judge panel in Washington, DC unanimously tossed out the FCC's August 2008 cease and desist order against Comcast,

You might see it differently. But, the way I see it, and the way I think Rush sees it is that the Feds want to start regulating providers (ISP's) on what they can restrict and what they can let loose through their portals to their customers.

I happen to agree with the courts decision. Its none of the Feds business to tell ISP's how to do business. If that got started, there would be no end to it.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 02:09 AM  8 years agoPost 8
jsenicka

rrProfessor

Eagle River, WI

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

It goes a lot further.
Net Neutrality says you cannot restrict traffic that is harmful to your business. For example, the premise of Net Neutrality says ATT should not be able to restrict or limit bandwidth used by a internet voice system like Skype, even though it cuts into ATT's voice business.
It goes to the thinking that business should exist to serve people's needs, not to make a profit.

And on the scarier side it is a way to enforce concepts like the fairness doctrine. So if you carry conservative content like say hotair or the like, then you must also carry equal lib content. Since that content may not make you money, you will be forced do drop stuff that does.

Simply another case of government dictating how business should run

Jim Senicka
Team Manager, GrandRC Flight Team

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 01:55 PM  8 years agoPost 9
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I liken it to the Government TELLING me I have to sell ALL brands of helicopters.

That I have to sell ALL parts for ALL brands of helicopters.

I don't think so....

If "I", as a businessman, WANTED to sell other helicopters, Hey that's "MY" business. But to be dictated to, to be FORCED to offer competitive products, AIN'T gonna happen.

Chris D. Bergen

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 05:43 PM  8 years agoPost 10
ErichF

rrElite Veteran

Sutton, NH

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Chris,

You don't count...you're just a mouth piece for Big RC Helicopter. We all know you just can't wait to go back into the machine shop and threaten the down-trodden workers you enslave to boost productivity by hacking off more fingers.


Erich

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 09:41 PM  8 years agoPost 11
Chris Bergen

rrElite Veteran

cassopolis, MI USA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

ROFLMAO.. You are SO right!!

BTW, if you don't like what you're ISP is offering, GET ANOTHER ONE!! Choose an ISP that ALLOWS skype, or whatever it is that you're wanting. That's called a FREE market. You are FREE to choose what you want to buy, or not to buy.

Except of course healthcare that you MUST purchase or pay a fine to the IRS...

Chris D. Bergen

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-08-2010 09:47 PM  8 years agoPost 12
Dennis (RIP)

rrApprentice

Oregon

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Except of course healthcare that you MUST purchase or pay a fine to the IRS...
Not necessarily. The Supreme Court might have something to say about that.

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
04-09-2010 02:32 AM  8 years agoPost 13
fla heli boy

rrKey Veteran

cape coral, florida

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

the SCOTUS may be our last hope on a lot of things.
Hey Chris, how's your dad???

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR  Quote
WATCH
 1 page 719 views POST REPLY
HomeOff Topics News & Politics › Court: No Internet Control for FCC
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 3  Topic Subscribe

Thursday, August 16 - 9:29 pm - Copyright © 2000-2018 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online