Net Neutrality … like Affordable Healthcare, Choice and Women’s Health — language twisted to the reverse

JustineBatemanNetNeutrality1The following #Statist drek is making the rounds again… someone famous (so they must be oh-so-clueful) wants you to hurry-up-and-act because something terrible-is-happening-right-now-and-we’re-the-only-ones-who-can-stop-it and well, here it is in total (though I’m not direct-linking because it’s a total fabrication):

==============
Justine Bateman‏ (Verified account @JustineBateman )

THREAD: You are about to lose access to the Internet. Are you going to be able to handle that? Your entertainment, your banking, your socializing, your work, your everything is through the Internet. #NetNeutrality means each packet of info is treated “neutrally”; All packets are let through w/ the same treatment. This is about to end. FCC chair is removing that #NetNeutrality protection & the ISPs (your internet service providers) are abut to turn the Internet into Cable TV. Tiered pricing, limited access to premium sites, slow connections for those who won’t/can’t pay, lack of access to sites some ISP disagrees with, etc. You have a message you want to get out online? You have a site w/ a certain agenda? Maybe it will not be accessible anymore. Who knows. It doesn’t matter if we wildy disagree on issues. We will both be screwed of we don’t have #NetNeutrality. Get on the phones and call your reps. Tell them under no circumstances will you allow this. 1-844-872-0234. #NetNeutrality Call @AjitPaiFCC and tell him he has no right to touch #NetNeutrality. 1-888-225-5322.
==============

BUT…

#NetNeutrality is one of those words that labels a thing which is actually the opposite of what you get. The ploy is that there is a fear of ISPs (like Comcast) blocking or throttling services (like Netflix for instance) that they feel competes with their ability to be evil capitalists. The problem is 1) This has never happened (a solution in search of a problem) and 2) the Federal Government would GAIN OVERSIGHT – REGULATING CONTENT on the internet … because that’s a good thing, right?

Statist/Left-leaning publications are fans, but no legitimate trade rags are. Only people in favor of more government control want Net Neutrality. That would put us in a position like the Chinese (so much for the 1st Amendment).

The PRO people want you to believe that ‘AGAINSTS’ include only the ISPs. That is a lie.

Justine Bateman us, by the way, an actor. Not a professional truth-teller. And pretty easily swayed by her buddies. She wants you to go tell the government that you fear Comcast — and want more government instead. Like you did for your healthcare.

LINK: On Forbes.com, Josh Steimle outlines the three basic reasons (“I Want More Competition”, “I Want More Privacy”, and “I Want More Freedom”) people who generally hate President Donald Trump also LOVE Net Neutrality:
Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality? (Forbes.com)

LINK: An article on BBC.com showing that ‘everyone’ is ‘for’ Net Neutrality (‘the science is settled!’) — except the evil cable companies, of course:
The coming battle over ‘net neutrality’ (BBC.com)

LINK: A surprising article explaining why this ignorance is pushing the OPPOSITE of what should be happening in the industry… from WIRED magazine itself, of all places:
What Everyone Gets Wrong in the Debate Over Net Neutrality (Wired.com)

NO ‘Net-Neutrality’ for me, thank you. I have been fighting against this propaganda war for over a decade — a deliberate promotion of ignorance to gain mindshare.

Think of the person you know with the slowest, most unreliable connection to the internet. That’s the Lowest Common Denominator. Now apply the Left’s version of ‘equal access for all’ to access as a public service; people and organizations who want to, and are able to, pay a little more can’t get a faster pipe — which sounds great until now, all schools are limited to the speed the vendor provides to all schools… at the lowest rate that can be charged — to accomodate the poorest school. What will that do to the ISP’s interest in improving their network over the years?

And that’s not just Comcast and Ameritech. Your phone… 4G LTE would not exist had this been the philosophy that drove the industry over the last 10 years. Because if not everybody can afford it, it would be #unfair to provide it to customers who can… and CHOOSE to.

Ten years ago, there wasn’t an ObamaCare to compare Net Neutrality to — so we couldn’t say “Net Neutrality is ObamaCare for the Internet”. Now we can.

LINK: Am I The Only Techie Against Net Neutrality? (forbes.com)
LINK: The FCC’s net neutrality rules: 5 things you need to know (pcworld.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality—and Obama’s Scheme for the Internet—Are Lousy Ideas (reason.com)
LINK: Making the Internet a utility—what’s the worst that could happen? (arstechnica.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality Is Government Censorship (nationalreview.com)
LINK: 5 Arguments Against Net Neutrality (mashable.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality and the Rule of Law (fed-soc.org)
LINK: Net Neutrality Nixed: Why John Oliver Is Wrong (reason.com)
LINK: The Case Against Net Neutrality (thebalance.com)
LINK: Why Business Should Oppose Net Neutrality (hbr.org)
LINK: Worried about Net neutrality? Maybe it’s the FCC that should really concern you (cnet.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality Rules: Still a Threat to Internet Freedom (heritage.org)
LINK: The Inconvenient Truth Behind The Net Neutrality Movement (zerohedge.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet (theobjectivestandard.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality: Trump’s Next Big Target (americanthinker.com)
LINK: Net Neutrality? There’s No Such Thing. (nationalinterest.org)
LINK: A Third Way on Network Neutrality (thenewatlantis.com)
LINK: The Future of ‘Fair and Balanced’: The Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality, and the Internet (scholarship.law.duke.edu)
LINK: The Role of Innovation and Wealth in the Net Neutrality Debate: A Content Analysis of Human Values in Congressional and FCC Hearings (terpconnect.umd.edu)

Americans enjoy freedoms outlined in a Bill of Rights; perhaps we need a Bill on NON-Rights to balance some of those who abuse our hard-won freedoms..

“We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights:

ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone — not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing. Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we’re just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people. If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don’t be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don’t be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won’t have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful.

ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights.

ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don’t care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from!

(lastly….)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country’s history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!!!!

-attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA