Network Neutrality–FCC Julius Genachowski–Tim Wu–Free and Open Internet Or Slow and Stupid Internet?

Posted on October 8, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Economics, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Technology, Video | Tags: FCC, Federal Communications Commission, free press, Internet Security, Jay Rockefeller, Julius Genachowski, Network Neutrality, Progressives, Radicals, Socialism, Tim Wu |

 “Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.”

~Ludwig von Mises

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion”

~Friedrich A. Hayek

Net Neutrality – PBS NOW Part 1/2

Net Neutrality – PBS NOW Part 2/2

FCC Net Neutrality: Arbitrary and Capricious?

FCC Commissioner on Net Neutrality

Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-1/2

Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-2/2

Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality

Net neutrality: Necessary or necessary evil?

Tim Wu on the Innovation Cycle

SavetheInternet.com on the Hill: Tim Wu’s Statement

Tim Wu on Network Neutrality

Tim Wu, Politics Online Conference March 2008

What is “Net Neutrality?”

The Communicators: Reactions to FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal

FCC To Push ‘Net Neutrality’ – Bloomberg

Genachowski Says AT&T Move Doesnt End Need for Web Rule: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhqzQkJTc5M

Rep. Waxman Pledges Support for Net Neutrality

President Obama pledges support for the open Internet

Barack Obama on Net Neutrality

The Communicators: Net Neutrality

Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality

Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed

Obama Wants Internet Control 52909–LibertyUnderFire.org

Obama Wants Control of the Internet

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 1

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 2

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 3

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 4

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 5

InternetforEveryone.org Launch

I am all for increased competition in any market place for goods and services.

Competition usually results in less expensive and better quality goods and services and innovation in the goods and services offered.

Government regulation or intervention in the marketplace usually has the unintended consequence of decreasing competition and innovation resulting in higher prices and lower quality.

Therefore, I am opposed to network neutrality.

Let the consumers decide what they want and how much, if anything, they are willing to pay for products and services including internet or broadband access and speed.

Consumer sovereignity should trump more government regulations.

Network neutrality is really a codeword for more government regulation and intervention into the marketplace for internet and communication services.

Let competitors, the profit motive and the marketplace alone.

Let the content providers and broadband carriers settle their differences free of government intervention and regulation of the internet.

Seriously consider abolishing the Federal Communications Commission like we finally did with the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Government intervention and regulation are the big problem.

Capitalism is the solution.

Internet Regulation – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

The Resurgence of Big Government – Ayn Rand Center – 1 of 2

The Resurgence of Big Government – Ayn Rand Center – 2 of 2

Yaron Brook’s Call to Action – March 2009 (Part 1 of 2)

Yaron Brook’s Call to Action – March 2009 (Part 2 of 2)

“A government that sets out to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption.”

~Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, page 281.

 “To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

~Friedrich A. Hayek

Background Articles and Videos

Neutering the ‘Net

The real agenda of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and other status-quo web powers behind the Obama administration’s Net Neutrality campaign.

“…The mask really slipped earlier this year when Time Warner Cable began experimenting with usage-based pricing to protect the average broadband customers from the 20% of users who create 80% of the traffic. A lobby called Free Press, the most extreme of the pro-net neutrality interests, went ballistic, calling metered pricing a “price-gouging scheme” and backing a bill in Congress to ban it.

Never mind that Free Press had previously argued just the opposite, saying usage-based pricing was a fairer way to deal with congestion than, say, by selectively slowing down file-sharing sites that gobble up disproportionate broadband capacity.

Never mind, too, the irony that the net-neut campaign against the selective slowing of non-urgent traffic has left only differential pricing as a way to bring a modicum of efficiency to network usage.

Here’s where the real fight begins. Google has been one of the most influential net-neut proponents. It recently secreted its top lobbyist, Andrew McLaughlin, into a White House job as deputy head of telecom policy. But Google also understands, as its chief Eric Schmidt recently put it, “It’s very, very important that the telecom operators have enough capital to continue the build-outs.”

Google’s trick will be to lobby for the optimum of Internet socialism—”tiered” pricing may be OK, in which some consumers pay extra for a bigger pipe. But usage-based pricing that would give consumers a reason to think twice before clicking on a Google-sponsored ad? It would be the end of Google’s business model.

And Google has allies. The greatest fear of Microsoft, Amazon, eBay and Yahoo is having to plumb their deep pockets and offer competing payments to broadband carriers to speed their bits to consumers. They much prefer spending their money to sprinkle server farms around the globe, assuring fast, reliable access for their customers in a way that no newcomer can easily replicate. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574429030182627044.html

The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation

by Timothy B. Lee

“…In recent years, self-styled “network neutrality” activists have pushed for legislation to prevent network owners from undermining the end-to end principle. Although the concern is understandable, such legislation would be premature. Physical ownership of internet infrastructure does not translate into a practical ability to control its use. Regulations are unnecessary because even in the absence of robust broadband competition, network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.

New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today’s network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms. …”

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775

Net Neutrality or Government Brutality?

“…Generally speaking, net neutrality is the notion that all content, applications, and services should be treated the same by Internet service providers (ISPs). Net-neutrality proponents fear that network operators might someday discriminate against certain types of information by charging fees to particular content providers in exchange for guarantees of higher-quality service or by blocking some content completely.

Such a proposal may sound innocuous enough, but the problem is that the proliferation of things like streaming video and online gaming are taking up increasingly large amounts of bandwidth and are sensitive to delay. This Internet congestion can lead to the degradation of service for all Internet users. Slight delays may hardly be noticeable in e-mail or web-browser applications, but can be more serious for video-content providers or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which allows people to make phone calls over the Internet.

Then there is the question whether the government has any right to tell ISPs how to manage their own networks and pricing structures, which will be discussed in some detail below. …”

“…While network-neutrality advocates claim to want to ensure fairness and competition, the government regulation they propose will result in anything but those things. In the free market, competition ensures that customers receive the services they demand. Government control, by contrast, ensures that they receive whatever services the politicians and bureaucrats in power at the time deem appropriate (not to mention the inevitable and endless litigation about who could offer what services when and for how much).

The concept of the “tiered” Internet is not something to be feared. On the contrary, it could be a means of enhancing services to broadband customers, providing revenue for ISPs to invest in accommodating increasing demand for bandwidth-intensive and delay-sensitive applications and making further improvements to data delivery, and of increasing fairness by ensuring that content providers responsible for the most Internet congestion pay the higher costs of assuring a high quality of service for Internet users. Choking off this potential revenue stream through net-neutrality mandates will only ensure that instead of an Internet with regular lanes and “fast lanes,” all consumers will be stuck in the slow lane.”

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/net-neutrality-or-government-brutality/

Network Neutrality

“…Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.^[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols); particularly those of competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.^[4] Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others have spoken out strongly in favor of network neutrality.

Opponents of net neutrality include large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Critics characterised net neutrality regulation as “a solution in search of a problem”, arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.^[5] In spite of this claim, certain Internet service providers (such as Comcast) have intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. Others have done exactly the opposite of what Telecom spokespersons claim and have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom “value added” services, and anti-competitive tying (“bundling”).^[6] Critics also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but highly desirable. Bob Kahn, Internet Protocol’s co-inventor, has called “net neutrality” a slogan, and states that he opposes establishing it, warning that “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” if it passes: “If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else’s net.” However, he also said “by virtue of doing that, you tend to fragment the net. And anything that will tend to fragment the net I’m opposed to, provided it’s not an incremental evolution of a new technology that’s happening.” ^[7] 

^…”

Net Neutrality Means an Unfree, Slow, and ‘Stupid’ Internet

Posted by Raymond C. Niles

“…The advocates of net neutrality claim they are seeking to preserve a “free” and “open” Internet and to prohibit the “unfair” policies of Internet service providers that favor some content over others. According to them, to preserve this openness and freedom, the FCC must be granted vastly greater powers to coercively determine the business practices of Internet service providers.

That claim, however, is a sham.

An “open” and “free” Internet cannot be achieved by means of further FCC regulations. Extending FCC controls to the wireless spectrum would not “open” anything or free anyone; rather it would further violate the rights of Americans to produce and trade according to their own judgment and thus thwart this vital new realm of life-serving technology. It would unleash a torrent of government control over every aspect of the Internet, granting the  government power to dictate how content is to be delivered and at what price, making it less profitable for Internet service providers to invest in costly infrastructure, and thereby quashing their incentive to innovate. …”

http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/labels/Business%20and%20Economics.asp#Net%20Neutrality%20Means%20an%20Unfree,%20Slow,%20and%20’Stupid’%20Internet

Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

“…Much could be said about the stupidity of net neutrality. But, setting aside the fact that it will thwart competition and retard the Internet, we must recognize first and foremost that net neutrality violates the rights of private property owners—specifically Internet service providers. The fact that Internet access is a profound value does not justify government force against the ISPs that make it possible, any more than the fact that books are a profound value justifies government involvement in Barnes and Noble’s pricing, displaying, and stocking of books. The property of Internet service providers is theirs; as such, they have the moral right to use and dispose of it as they please, regardless of what their customers, FCC bureaucrats, and net neutrality advocates have to say about it.

Unfortunately, net neutrality is a small part of a wider effort to erode property rights in America. As with eminent domain, zoning laws, and the like, net neutrality holds that it is moral to violate the rights of property owners for the “greater good.” Net neutrality holds that the benefit of a “neutral” Internet to all of its users justifies the use of force against those who own and maintain its backbone. It does not.

America morally must recognize the rights of Internet service providers to manage their property as they see fit. We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet, repudiate net neutrality, and keep the government’s stupid hands off this brilliant private property.

 http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/net-neutrality.asp

New FCC Chairman Targets internet

By James G. Lakely

  “…Genachowski is attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, which he plainly admitted by stating his goal is to “preserve” the freedom and openness of today’s Internet.

Julius Genachowski

“…Julius Genachowski (born August 19, 1962) is an American lawyer and businessman. He became Federal Communications Commission Chairman on June 29, 2009.[1]

“…Genachowski grew up in Great Neck, New York and received his B.A. in history in 1985 magna cum laude, from Columbia College, Columbia University, where he was an editor of the Columbia Daily Spectator. He received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, where he was a notes editor at the Harvard Law Review[2] when it was headed by Barack Obama, who graduated in the same year. After graduating from Harvard, also magna cum laude, Genachowski clerked for the Honorable Abner J. Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then at the U.S. Supreme Court for two years, for Justices William J. Brennan and David Souter.[3]

“…He worked on the select committee investigating the Iran-Contra Affair and for U.S. Representative (now Senator) Chuck Schumer.[4] He was Chief Counsel to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt, a position he left in 1996 to go into business.

Genachowski was Chief of Business Operations and a member of Barry Diller’s Office of the Chairman at IAC/InterActiveCorp. He had previously served on the Boards of Directors of Expedia, Hotels.com and Ticketmaster.[2]

He is a co-founder of LaunchBox Digital and Rock Creek Ventures.[3] He is also a special advisor at General Atlantic and a member of the Boards of Directors at The Motley Fool, Web.com, Mark Ecko Enterprises, and Beliefnet.[3] He was appointed to the board of JackBe in April 2006. [5]

Genachowski serves as a board member of Common Sense Media, a leading organization seeking to improve the media lives of children and families; and as an advisory board member of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). He also recently helped found the New Resource Bank, the country’s first commercial “green bank.”[2] …”

“…For the Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign, Genachowski was Chairman of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications policy working group that created the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan.[6] He also advised and guided the Obama campaign’s innovative use of technology and the Internet for grassroots engagement and participation.

He co-led the Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform Group for president-elect Barack Obama’s presidential transition team.[7] On January 12, 2009, several news outlets reported that Genachowski would be President-Elect Obama’s choice to head the Federal Communications Commission as Chairman. This was confirmed by a press release on March 3, 2009. [8] …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKib8xMu9TY&feature=PlayList&p=488946669A5E518E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13

Julius Genachowski

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/

 Federal Communications Commission

http://www.fcc.gov/

Free Press

“…Free Press is a non-partisan media advocacy organization, and by membership the largest such organization in the United States.[citation needed] It was founded by media critic Robert W. McChesney, journalist John Nichols and current executive director Josh Silver. The current chair of Free Press is Columbia Professor Tim Wu. In the 2000s, Free Press has grown into among the most prominent organizations criticizing media consolidation and defending network neutrality. It has a membership of over 500,000, making it in membership terms the largest media advocacy group in the United States.[1] …”

Free Press’ aim is to increase the public’s stake in the debate of appropriate media policy with the goal of creating a more competitive media landscape and promoting a media system more friendly to the public interest. In the period from 2002-2008, Free Press was one of the leading organizations in the Save the Internet campaign and the Stop Big Media coalition. Free Press is also the organizer of the large annual National Conference for Media Reform.

Free Press employs a full time lobbying staff in Washington, D.C. Free Press’ senior lobbyist, Ben Scott, has been described as a “driving force for ‘net neutrality.'” [1]

Free Press

http://www.freepress.net/

Tim Wu

“…Tim Wu (traditional Chinese: 吳修銘) is a professor at Columbia Law School, the chair of media reform group Free Press, and a writer for Slate Magazine.^[1] He is best known for popularizing the concept of network neutrality in his paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper considered network neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and Quality of Service-sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues.^[2][3]

Wu’s academic specialties are copyright and telecommunications policy. For his work in this area, Professor Wu was named one of Scientific American’s 50 people of the year in 2006. In 2007 Wu was named one of Harvard University’s 100 most influential graduates by 02138 magazine.^[4]

^“…

In 2003, Wu contributed to the Howard Dean and John Edwards presidential campaigns.^[10] During 2008, Wu served as an adviser to the Barack Obama presidential campaign.^[11] …”

^“…Wu is credited with popularizing the concept of network neutrality in his 2003 paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper considered network neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and Quality of Service-sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues.^[2][12]

In 2006, Wu wrote “The World Trade Law of Internet Filtering”, which analyzed the possibility of the World Trade Organization treating censorship as a barrier to trade.^[13] In June 2007, when Google Inc. lobbied the United States Trade Representative to pursue a complaint against China’s censorship at the WTO, Wu’s paper was cited as a “likely source” for this idea.^[14] In 2006 Wu was also invited by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help draft the first network neutrality rules attached to the AT&T and BellSouth merger.^[15]

In 2007, Wu published a paper proposing a “Wireless Carterfone” rule for mobile phone networks^[16]; the rule was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission for the 700 MHz spectrum auctions on July 31, 2007, with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stating: “I find it extremely heartening to see that an academic paper—in this case by Professor Timothy Wu of Columbia Law School—can have such an immediate and forceful influence on policy.”^[17] In November 2007 BusinessWeek credited Wu with providing “the intellectual framework that inspired Google’s mobile phone strategy.”^[18]

With his Columbia Law School colleagues Professors Scott Hemphill and Clarisa Long, Wu co-directs the Columbia Law School Program on Law and Technology, founded in 2007.^[19][20] In August 2007, in collaboration with the University of Colorado School of Law’s Silicon Flatirons Program, the Columbia Law School Program on Law and Technology launched a Beta version of AltLaw, which he produced.^[21] …”

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wu}

Obama Announces White House Internet Team

“…The White House press shop already made a wave, at least by Washington standards, when President Obama called on The Huffington Post at his first press conference. On a recent White House conference call for progressive bloggers, one new media aide said that calling on bloggers at presidential press conferences could be a “new tradition.”

Staff Information from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

Macon Phillips, Director of New Media 

Since the election, Phillips has served as Director of New Media for the Presidential Transition Team, developing Change.gov and overseeing the transition’s overall online communications. Prior to that, he served as the Deputy Director of New Media for Obama for America, managing the day to day operations of the campaign’s online program. Before the campaign, Macon led Blue State Digital’s strategy practice, working with clients like the Democratic National Committee and Senator Ted Kennedy.

Cammie Croft, Deputy New Media Director

Croft comes to the White House from the Obama-Biden Transition Project, where she served as the Deputy New Media Director, specializing in online communications. Prior to that, as the New Media Rapid Response Manager for the Obama for America campaign, she oversaw efforts to integrate new media and communications, including managing websites such as FighttheSmears.com and UndertheRadar.com. Before joining the campaign, Croft built the tracking and media monitoring program at Progressive Accountability, a rapid-response communications advocacy campaign that provided video of Republican Presidential candidates for the mass public. Croft also worked as the Rapid Response Mobilization Director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, where she led their new media efforts, working with MoveOn.org’s online tools to mobilize Americans opposed to the war. …”

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/410988/obama_announces_white_house_internet_team

 

Obama Announces Members of his Media and Online Team

“…Macon Phillips, Director of New Media

Since the election, Phillips has served as Director of New Media for the Presidential Transition Team, developing Change.gov and overseeing the transition’s overall online communications.  Prior to that, he served as the Deputy Director of New Media for Obama for America, managing the day to day operations of the campaign’s online program.  Before the campaign, Macon led Blue State Digital’s strategy practice, working with clients like the Democratic National Committee and Senator Ted Kennedy.  A native of Huntsville, Alabama, Phillips is a graduate of Duke University and lives with his fiancée in Washington, DC.

Cammie Croft, Deputy New Media Director

 

Croft comes to the White House from the Obama-Biden Transition Project, where she served as the Deputy New Media Director, specializing in online communications.  Prior to that, as the New Media Rapid Response Manager for the Obama for America campaign, she oversaw efforts to integrate new media and communications, including managing websites such as FighttheSmears.com and UndertheRadar.com.  Before joining the campaign, Croft built the tracking and media monitoring program at Progressive Accountability, a rapid-response communications advocacy campaign that provided video of Republican Presidential candidates for the mass public. Croft also worked as the Rapid Response Mobilization Director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, where she led their new media efforts, working with MoveOn.org’s online tools to mobilize Americans opposed to the war.  Croft holds a B.A. in Political Science and Communication from the University of Washington in Seattle, where she graduated with distinction. She is also an alumnus of the New Organizing Institute (NOI), a unique online organizing forum for technologically-savvy, progressive campaigners.  …”

http://obamatech.org/2009/02/25/obama-announces-members-of-his-media-and-online-team/

 

 

  

 

 

 

Capitalism

“…Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Capitalism is based on the premises of laissez faire, where private individuals are free to exchange goods or services without intervention from the State, hence the term “free market.”^[1] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as rules determining what may and may not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy and many states have what are termed “mixed economies.”^[2] Mixed economies refer to capitalism being mixed with central planning or statism, with statism being the ideological opposite of capitalism. ^[3] Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, paid employment, and prices and wages set according to market supply and demand, are elements of capitalism.^[4]

Capitalism as a system developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe, although capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.^[5][6][7] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.^[7] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.^[8]

There is no consensus on capitalism nor how it should be used as an analytical category.^[9] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.^[8] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism.

Economists usually put emphasis on the market mechanism, degree of government control over markets (laissez faire), and property rights^[10][11], while most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, and class.^[2] While there is a general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth,^[12] political advocacy both for and against capitalism is based on many different arguments. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

 

FCC Nominee Julius Genachowski Opposes Fairness Doctrine

 

FCC Nominee Julius Genachowski Opposes Fairness Doctrine

 

Candidates@Google: Barack Obama

Net Neutrality

The Truth About Net Neutrality (Part 1/2)

The Truth About Net Neutrality (Part 2/2)

CWA rally against net neutrality