Allegations that Soros-back group, Ford Foundation 'bought' net neutrality

[Viligant_Warrior]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/soros-ford-shovel-196-million-to-net-neutrality-groups-staff-to-white-house/article/2560702"]

Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House[/url]

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.

“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.

And it gets worse ...

A Leading Net Neutrality Activist’s Neo-Marxist Views

One of the co-founders of a George Soros-backed group pushing for net neutrality internet regulation holds neo-Marxist views and has suggested eliminating media advertising.

The activist has also proposed spending $35 billion on federal programs to subsidize the news.

“In the end, there is no real answer but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles,” wrote Robert McChesney, a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and co-founder of the pro-regulation organization Free Press, in a 2009 essay.

McChesney founded "Free Press," which advocates for anything but that, in 2002, and works closely with Open Society, which is Soros' little idea of a joke, apparently, given he is pushing to establish Marxist socialism, i.e., a closed society, and control of communication is the first step in that direction. The FCC gave Soros, McChesney and the Marxist-Socialist left the keys to victory yesterday (Thursday 2/25).

We are perilously close to losing our freedoms, most importantly of speech, and exercise of religion. Soros intends to destablize and then destroy our democratic republic, and COnstitution, and our basic freedoms, "for our own good," I'm sure he would say.

Wake up, America. You're going to sleeo your country into oblivion.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

So I am seeing all this buzz and spin about this so-called Net Neutrality measure, but what is the real deal with it? What does it actually do?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

So I am seeing all this buzz and spin about this so-called Net Neutrality measure, but what is the real deal with it? What does it actually do?

Soros being involved in getting it passed should be a clue as to why it's a bad thing. Got give the Marxist-Socialists credit. They saw an opportunity in the naïve and very unpolitical ideas of the 'Net nerds and turned it into what could potentially be the death of the First Amendment.

Allegedly, "net neutrality" was going to level the playing field, not allowing providers to make deals with big data pushers like Netflix or Hulu to have high-speed and broad(er)-band access to put their services out on the net. The 'Net nerds thought that was a great idea. What they didn't realize is that it isn't going to make faster, "wider" traffic lanes available to everybody, it is going to put a halt on broadband expansion, and the new FCC rules govern the Internet like a phone service used to be governed.

Now, any changes that someone wants to make to rate structures or services, or any innovations that improve service or offer new, not-previously-thought-of concepts will have to go to the FCC and/or the state utility regulation boards to get them approved. We all know how well bureaucrats handle innovation, right?

This not only, as I stated in the OP, puts our freedom of speech, freedom of information, and freedom of access in jeopardy and puts us in a position of seeing it come under government control, it will cause a slow-down in upload and download speeds, limit creativity and new services, and essentially give the U.S. government the kind of control over the Internet that China and the Muslim countries impose.

Welcome to Net Neutrality. You're not gonna love it.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Soros being involved in getting it passed should be a clue as to why it's a bad thing. Got give the Marxist-Socialists credit. They saw an opportunity in the naïve and very unpolitical ideas of the 'Net nerds and turned it into what could potentially be the death of the First Amendment.

Allegedly, "net neutrality" was going to level the playing field, not allowing providers to make deals with big data pushers like Netflix or Hulu to have high-speed and broad(er)-band access to put their services out on the net. The 'Net nerds thought that was a great idea. What they didn't realize is that it isn't going to make faster, "wider" traffic lanes available to everybody, it is going to put a halt on broadband expansion, and the new FCC rules govern the Internet like a phone service used to be governed.

Now, any changes that someone wants to make to rate structures or services, or any innovations that improve service or offer new, not-previously-thought-of concepts will have to go to the FCC and/or the state utility regulation boards to get them approved. We all know how well bureaucrats handle innovation, right?

This not only, as I stated in the OP, puts our freedom of speech, freedom of information, and freedom of access in jeopardy and puts us in a position of seeing it come under government control, it will cause a slow-down in upload and download speeds, limit creativity and new services, and essentially give the U.S. government the kind of control over the Internet that China and the Muslim countries impose.

Welcome to Net Neutrality. You're not gonna love it.

If that is all there is to it then that doesn't worry me none. Doesn't sound like much of a change lol.

 

[Human]

Soros being involved in getting it passed should be a clue as to why it's a bad thing. Got give the Marxist-Socialists credit. They saw an opportunity in the naïve and very unpolitical ideas of the 'Net nerds and turned it into what could potentially be the death of the First Amendment.

Allegedly, "net neutrality" was going to level the playing field, not allowing providers to make deals with big data pushers like Netflix or Hulu to have high-speed and broad(er)-band access to put their services out on the net. The 'Net nerds thought that was a great idea. What they didn't realize is that it isn't going to make faster, "wider" traffic lanes available to everybody, it is going to put a halt on broadband expansion, and the new FCC rules govern the Internet like a phone service used to be governed.

Now, any changes that someone wants to make to rate structures or services, or any innovations that improve service or offer new, not-previously-thought-of concepts will have to go to the FCC and/or the state utility regulation boards to get them approved. We all know how well bureaucrats handle innovation, right?

This not only, as I stated in the OP, puts our freedom of speech, freedom of information, and freedom of access in jeopardy and puts us in a position of seeing it come under government control, it will cause a slow-down in upload and download speeds, limit creativity and new services, and essentially give the U.S. government the kind of control over the Internet that China and the Muslim countries impose.

Welcome to Net Neutrality. You're not gonna love it.

Hiking rates for particular customers is wrong. As is giving more allocation of faster lanes to big companies who pay handsome sms to broadband providers. We already have Net Neutrality rules in the UK, and it works.

I'd rather Soros pushed through millions of dollars to help along Net Neutrality legistlation than someone push along millions of dollars to stop it.

Net Neutrality is essentially taking the class system out of the internet train. No first class for those who are willing to pay, and no third class for those who don't have the cash -- traffic gets handled fairly. ISP's should run the network they shouldn't get to decide which companies get more traffic flow and higher speeds just because they can pay the ISP's big bucks.

Can you imagine being a startup software company looking for advertising and internet traffic, having to pay the advertising fees and setting up a website and server, then your ISP saying ''well, we're restricting your traffic allowance and your connection speeds because Microsoft need it, they're a bigger company and they can pay more. Unless you pay us more money, you'll get virtually no visitors to your website''?

Or, let's say you enjoy watching LoveFilm instead of Netflix, but Netflix pay the ISP's much more than LoveFilm, so they get fast lane speeds, while LoveFilm don't. Every time you log on, the traffi to LoveFilm has reached its limit and your speed becomes so slow that you can't even watch a movie without it buffering for a minute to play back 30 seconds of video.

These are just a couple of reasons why net neutrality is important.

Netflix have already had to pay a fee to Comcast (an ISP), who held the company ransom, in order for their service to reach Netflix customers at speeds that are sufficient to actually play back the content.

We shouldn't allow ISP's to do this, else we're effectively allowing them to be the internet mafiosos, controlling traffic as they see fit, holding companies ransom, cutting access s they wish.

What happens when they start getting donations from particularly pointed political organizations or politicians?

''Want to cut the speed and traffic allowance to your political opponents campaign site? We can do that for $10 million! Want to stop the spread of free information about the CIA's illegal operations? Pay us the reasonable sum of $20 million and we can do just that! Don't like Christian Chat? Why not send us twenty thousand dollars and we can stunt their speed till the site becomes unusable!!''

Nah, net neutrality is definitely the way forward. You just oppose it because of partisanship. You oppose anything Democrat or Liberal!

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

If that is all there is to it then that doesn't worry me none. Doesn't sound like much of a change lol.

Let me know if you still think that when you're download speeds drop to the 10 mB range, like they were 10 years ago.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Let me know if you still think that when you're download speeds drop to the 10 mB range, like they were 10 years ago.

Lol, do people still download stuff?

 

[Sirk]

Lol, do people still download stuff?

Every time you watch a movie, play a video game and oh...click on a website in your favorites bar.

 

[Sirk]

Just ran a speed test......34mbps. What is in the the UK Human?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Every time you watch a movie, play a video game and oh...click on a website in your favorites bar.

I thought all that was called streaming.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I thought all that was called streaming.

... which is dependent on high download speeds. Otherwise, your movie/game/etc. goes into buffering mode every few seconds.