FreePress wants revolution not resolution of net neutrality

Ever wonder why the net neutrality issue can't be resolved, despite all the many earnest efforts, negotiations, and compromises to resolve it over the last four years?

• The simple reason is that FreePress -- the head net neutrality activist -- does not want to resolve net neutrality; every time there is a real effort to resolve the issue, FreePress does everything in their power to blow up any prospect for resolution.
• The one constant in the Net neutrality debate over the last four years has been FreePress’ fierce opposition to any real resolution, because FreePress wants the opposite -- revolution.

Before I recount FreePress’ ignominious longstanding record of opposing resolution of net neutrality, it is important to understand why FreePress is such a singularly destructive, and not a constructive, force in the net neutrality debate.

• First, FreePress is not a genuine “stakeholder” here because FreePress has no “stake” in “preserving” or “saving” the status quo; FreePress’ real mission is to destroy the status quo of free enterprise, property rights, individualism, and capitalism.
  • Including FreePress in “stakeholder negotiations” is like inviting a pyromaniac to fight a fire.
• Moreover, FreePress’ founder Robert McChesney is an unabashed Marxist.
  • In a 2008 op-ed on the Financial Crisis, McChesney wrote: "there is no real answer, but to remove brick by brick the capitalist system itself, rebuilding the entire society on socialist principles.”
  • In another 2008 op-ed, McChesney declared that "any serious effort to reform the media system would have to necessarily be part of a revolutionary program to overthrow the capitalist system itself."

• Second, FreePress does not seek to "resolve" net neutrality, because to them net neutrality is not an end, but a means to a hidden end -- a socialist "information commons" where all information and bandwidth is essentially free to everyone and no one has to ask for permission to do anything online.
  • If you want to learn more about FreePress’ revolutionary ideology, click here.
  • If you want to learn more about how FreePress and other extreme left activists essentially connived to frame net neutrality as a political-revolutionary issue, click here.

Now back to my main point here. Every single time there’s a real effort and opportunity to resolve the net neutrality issue, FreePress goes bonkers and threatens people in all sorts of despicable ways to not negotiate or compromise to come up with a workable resolution of the net neutrality issue.

• In the summer of 2006, FreePress and its SaveTheInternet mob-on-command, vehemently opposed House legislation that codified the FCC’s broadband principles and gave the FCC authority to fine violators; and opposed Senate legislation that would have created the consumer Internet Bill of Rights that FreePress had previously clamored for.
• When FreePress petitioned the FCC to investigate Comcast’s alleged violations of net neutrality vis-a-vis BitTorrent, FreePress vehemently opposed any industry negotiations to devise protocols that would accommodate Comcast’s legitimate quality-of-service and network management concerns while also balancing the legitimate need for protocol agnostic network management – as a sellout, unacceptable discrimination, and a violation of free speech.
• FreePress opposed proceeding with the FCC’s National Broadband Plan if it did not include mandated net neutrality or a recommendation to reclassify Broadband as a Title II 1934 regulated telephone service.
• FreePress rallied the extreme left and very personally berated FCC Chairman Genachowski and the White House when the Washington Post reported last spring that the FCC Chairman was leaning toward not requiring Title II telephone regulation of broadband in his Open Internet “Third Way” proposal.
• This summer when the FCC and Congress hosted and encouraged stakeholders to negotiate and come up with a workable compromise, FreePress was relentlessly attacking any attempt at negotiation or compromise as not open, undemocratic, and inherently nefarious – because FreePress was not interested in resolution, but revolution.
• When Google and Verizon had the courage to propose a potential compromise that many major stakeholders could live with, and that included everything the FCC Chairman said he wanted from an open Internet proceeding (authority to enforce net neutrality principles, prevent discrimination, and promote transparency), FreePress viciously turned on its longstanding and strongest corporate ally, Google, with all the venom and rage it collectively could muster, calling Google evil, picketing their headquarters, and savaging Google mercilessly in the press and the blogosphere – all because Google had the temerity to try and be constructive and resolve this endless tech-policy-holy-war that is serving no one’s interests but FreePress’.

In sum at some point, FreePress’ destructive MO will wear out its welcome with the FCC, the Administration and the Congress.

• More and more, those involved in the political and regulatory process are learning that what FreePress, really wants – revolution – tearing down the current capitalistic Internet system to replace it with their socialized Internet system -- is not what they want – at all.
• The vast majority of people involved in resolving the net neutrality issue are true stakeholders – who want and need the Internet to work reliably and safely, the economy to function, grow and create new jobs, and property to be protected to encourage innovation and investment in the future.
• The “open” question is when will the FCC comprehend what the majority of Congress already clearly comprehends, that net neutrality must be resolved constructively and not destructively.

Simply, FreePress seeks to destroy what most everyone else wants to preserve, grow and improve.

• The net neutrality issue is practically un-resolvable as long as those in Government continue to listen to, and toy with, the highly destructive agenda of FreePress, which seeks to fundamentally destroy what most everyone else wants to preserve, grow and enhance.