China to go after Internet phone services

It just shows that the Chinese gov is maintaining the imperial nature of all the rulers before them, all of 5,000 odd years. Hats off to them for consistency.

Information is dangerous in the hands of the unwashed masses, so the chinese government is trying to keep those masses healthy.

A little "contribution" to the powers that be goes a long way in China. Years back, an American real estate mogul started a pager service in mainland
China. His comment about the government, who was cut in on the deal, loves money more than any capitalist. I am ashamed that America has to lick the boots of this slave nation.

There's a Chinese spammer on this "Comments" board!
Come on, mediator, or whoever edits this site. It's
like a zombie movie!

There's a Chinese spammer on this "Comments" board!

How do you know he/she is Chinese?

Where are the net neutrality detractors for this article? Do you guys think China would benefit from having a legal bar preventing them from doing this? I do. Hence why Net Neutrality is important. If China will do it to control their business environment, what makes you think a telco like Verizon or a VoIP provider like Comcast wouldn't do the same without a legal barrier preventing it?

How will the FCC enforce net neutrality in China?

Not that I agree with Chinese communism but I'm impressed they often have the balls to openly admit their intentions. In the UK our governmnent would pay for a study to link skype with growing cancer rates.

In the US, with 'net neutrality', companies will have fewer incentives to satisfy their customers to stay profitable and in business.
These companies will only need to satisfy 5 unelected commissioners. It will be much easier for the big companies to influence these commissioners with high paying jobs as govt liaisons when their terms expire.
The Diogenous 'progressives' will fault the individual commissioners for being dishonest and continue to search for an 'honest man' to entrust their 'progressive' state.

In the US, with 'net neutrality', companies will have fewer incentives to satisfy their customers to stay profitable and in business.

They have no incentive to satisfy them now. Verizon and ATT own 90% of the backbone infrastructure in the country. For a start up company to establish a robust infrastructure akin to what exists now would take decades.

These companies will only need to satisfy 5 unelected commissioners.

No, they will have to adhere to the laws or deal with the Justice department.

It will be much easier for the big companies to influence these commissioners with high paying jobs as govt liaisons when their terms expire.

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

That would result in censure and jail time.

"The history of big business is one of cooperation with big government. Most noteworthy expansions of government power are to the liking of, and at the request of, big business. "

www .cato.org/research/articles/cpr28n4-1.html

Useful idiots like SH need to read The Tar Baby.

CATO is a well known biased source. If you're going to speak out about partnerships between government and business through regulation, you may want to choose a source that isn't entirely bought and paid for by business interests.

Glenn Beck appears to be 'mistaken' about what net neutrality entails as he works to undermine the policy, a Cato Institute research fellow said this week.

Though Cato is a libertarian think tank opposed to net-neutrality regulations, research fellow Julian Sanchez said that Beck appears to be confused about the substance of the debate over Internet line rules.

"There are plenty of reasons to worry that neutrality rules might ultimately be bad for consumers in ways the advocates for regulation don't anticipate or intend, but [Glenn Beck's] objection is pure fantasy," Sanchez said in comments to Media Matters, a liberal advocacy group.

Beck has made strong statements in opposition to net neutrality, warning of the possibility that the government will censor the Web

Since you enjoy CATO so much, perhaps you should read the above and recognize that your source itself states that you are wrong in your assumptions about Net Neutrality.

Micheal Powell, former FCC chairman:
"He is on the board of directors of Object Video, CMWare and Cisco."

"There are plenty of reasons to worry that neutrality rules might ultimately be bad for consumers in ways the advocates for regulation don't anticipate or intend"
I agree 100%.

entirely bought and paid for by business interests.

Like Congress?
Please let me know what business interest supports CATO so I can patronize them.

Aside from the fact their founding and current board members and CEO are oil men, Altria Group (Formerly Philip Morris), American Petroleum Institute, Comcast Corporations, FedEx Corporation, Microsoft, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Visa Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., GM, Ford

Do you think Comcast might have a hand in CATO net neutrality policy? How about Microsoft? Both of which have been before the courts on multiple occasions for unfair business practices in regards to the internet both in the US and abroad.

Micheal Powell, former FCC chairman:
"He is on the board of directors of Object Video, CMWare and Cisco."

What else would you expect but corruption from a Corproatist appointed Republican chairman?

Similar arguments emanated from Wall Street that government "overregulation" would hinder banks and trading. Now the barn doors are being closed after
the horses have escaped, due to a blind-eyed and corrupt SEC and human nature. These opportunists wreaked economic ruin . The Chinese simply don't want their citizens to visually chat with relatives in Democratic countries. In the former Soviet Union, it was bootlegged rock'n roll records that made the authorities nervous. By supplying the Chinese with our consumer dollars, we unwittingly support their tyranny. Maybe Americans still tacitly approve of slavery as long as they don't have to see it.

By supplying the Chinese with our consumer dollars, we unwittingly support their tyranny.

Chinese people know more about the west now than ever before.
The liberty virus is seeping into China and it will be very difficult for them to keep it out.

Do you think Comcast might have a hand in CATO net neutrality policy? How about Microsoft?

You claimed CATO was funded by big business. Back it up.

You claimed CATO was funded by big business. Back it up.

It's on their own site Marjon. Seeing as you're a frequent visitor one would expect you to actually read it.

http:/www.cato.org/about/reports/annual_report_2007.pdf
http:/www.cato.org/about/reports/annual_report_2008.pdf
http:/www.cato.org/about/reports/annual_report_2009.pdf

"The liberty virus is seeping into China and it will be very difficult for them to keep it out."

And how long will it be before that liberty virus
takes hold so that Liu Xiaobo, the imprisoned dissident is released from his 11 year prson term?
China is in the grip of a fascist regime, that doles out freedom in minute portions, creating the illusion of concession to diplomatic pressure, while actually tightening its grip. Ask the Tibetan people about your "liberty virus."

You claimed CATO was funded by big business. Back it up.

It's on their own site Marjon. Seeing as you're a frequent visitor one would expect you to actually read it.

http:/www.cato.org/about/reports/annual_report_2007.pdf
http:/www.cato.org/about/reports/annual_report_2008.pdf
http:/www.cato.org/about/reports/annual_report_2009.pdf

I said 'big business'. The kind of businesses that like govt regulation and oppose free market competition like SH does.

As pointed out previously, major supporters of 'net neutrality' are self-admitted socialists.

I said 'big business'. The kind of businesses that like govt regulation and oppose free market competition like SH does.

If you don't think Microsoft, Comcast, Phillip Morris, American Petroleum Institute, R. J. Reynolds, Visa Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., GM, and Ford are big business, define the term.

As pointed out previously, major supporters of 'net neutrality' are self-admitted socialists.

So Michele Combs, VP of the Christian Coalition is a socialist? Better go have them shutdown for anti-American activities McCarthyjon.

"Most bold and radical of the neutralists is Robert W. McChesney, founder of Free Press -- the leading advocacy group in Washington pushing for net neutrality. In an August interview with a Canadian Marxist online publication called the Bullet, McChesney rejoices that net neutrality can finally bring about the Marxist "revolution."

"At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," McChesney said. "We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http:/washingtonexaminer.com/node/156326#ixzz19t5c0zo0"

McChesney rejoices that net neutrality can finally bring about the Marxist "revolution."

Do you even understand what the "Marxist Revolution" is? It is the sovreignty of the individual within a social society. It is not socialism persay.

But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

The founding fathers said it best:
Freedom to pursue knowledge unhindered makes any man greater than he would be otherwise.

It is not socialism persay.

Whatever makes you feel better about being a lying socialist.

Lets see SH shows that the Cato Institute is run by capitalists. Marjon tells a lie about it. SH makes it even more clear. Marjon pretends it didn't happen.

Then Marjon calls SH a lying socialist.

Out of curiosity how is it that it is OK for you to lie so much?

Ethelred

SH shows that the Cato Institute is run by capitalists

What's wrong with that?
Most of the 'big businesses' you all whine about do NOT support capitalism. It is refreshing when there are a few that do.
SH lies about me (he claims to know where I work and live, BTW, I will NOT post my real address) and he DOES support socialism (state control of private property).

What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Except you lied about that it isn't controlled by Big Business. And the Cato Insane Asylum of Gold Standard Promotion is a poor choice for pretty much anything information of value. Except for learning who is silly enough to think it is useful.

Most of the 'big businesses' you all whine about do NOT support capitalism.

Those WERE big businesses there. So maybe you might want to reconsider your use of any of that sites nonsense. It comes from Big Business.

Ethelred

What's wrong with that?

Selection bias for one.

Most of the 'big businesses' you all whine about do NOT support capitalism. It is refreshing when there are a few that do.

That's a nonsensical statement.

SH lies about me (he claims to know where I work and live, BTW, I will NOT post my real address)

No actually, I made a statement asking you if you were a particular person. Going off of information that you have volunteered to us, ie: what town you work in, and what your name is (from your profile before you deleted it) It was rather easy to determine who you are.

and he DOES support socialism (state control of private property).

I don't support state control of private property. I don't think your wages are private property. Since you work for a public institution, your wages in particular are not private property.

It was rather easy to determine who you are.

I warned you to be more skeptical.

I don't support state control of private property.

You support net neutrality, which is state control of private property.

As for 'big businesses' that are anti-capitalist, that is well documented.

"The economic law underlying Obamanomics—opaque to most journalists and contrary to conventional wisdom—is this: increased government control centralizes industries and favors the biggest businesses.” So while liberal bloggers like Matt Yglesias and Ezra Klein welcome the support of red-state behemoth retailer Wal-Mart on their side of the healthcare debate, Carney points out that Wal-Mart is using government regulation to raise overhead costs for Target, which offers fewer health benefits than Wal-Mart."
"“GE: The For-Profit Arm of the Obama Administration,” is worth the price of the book and provides a perfect case study. Just days after Obama’s inauguration, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt wrote to shareholders, “The global economy, and capitalism, will be ‘reset’ in several important ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever."
http:/www.amconmag.com/article/2010/feb/01/00047/

"Such a populist-libertarian agenda would seek to shutter the den of corporate welfare known as the Department of Commerce. In its place, Carney would implement Cato Institute scholar Stephen Slivinski’s plan for a bipartisan anti-corporate-welfare commission. The commission would have authority to send a bill to Congress closing down all corporate giveaways. Political opponents would be forced to defend in public the enrichment of Goldman Sachs, GE, and Boeing over any other cause that might be looking for a $100 billion government handout. “Imagine the debate,” fantasizes Carney, “Obama arguing explicitly on GM’s and Goldman Sachs’ side, with Republicans arguing to protect taxpayers and Main Street. It would be a good political cudgel, as well as excellent policy."
(Same source)

You support net neutrality, which is state control of private property.

The internet is not private property. Rather telling of your stance that you'd steal a public invention and claim it is the child of big business.

Obama arguing explicitly on GM's and Goldman Sachs' side, with Republicans arguing to protect taxpayers and Main Street.

Which wouldn't happen. The GS bailout was of Republican design, while the GM bailout has been a conservative practice since the late 60's. You should do more reasearch outside of the editorial pages.

It was rather easy to determine who you are.

I warned you to be more skeptical.

And I warned you to remove your online presence from other sites if you didn't want ot be found out.

The presence of a "marjon90" account with a wishlist of books that you often quote from was also a very telling coincidence. It was also rather fun to notice on that list a bunch of additions that were part of a conversation you were utterly spanked in on these forums. In particular the ethelred conversation on emergent systems. The amount of data you leave behind, and the fact you think that people can't determine who you are when you use the same login, (and probably the same PW) everywhere shows that you're not so good at this new fangled internet thingamajig. Using the same email address for many of these accounts also hurt your case. You actually admitted who you were when you decided to change your screen name here to make it dissimilar form the rest of your online presence. G,S,M.

SH: You need to be more skeptical.

And I warned you to remove your online presence from other sites if you didn't want ot be found out.

Personal attacks and threats are quite common from the socialist left.

The internet is not private property.

Who owns the servers and communication lines that transmits data?
"The Internet has no central owner. While its structure remains carefully designed and maintained, the actual content on the Internet continues to be the untamed cyberspace we all know and love."
http:/computer.howstuffworks.com/internet/basics/who-owns-internet2.htm
Except we now have more govt control (ownership) thanks to FCC.

Personal attacks and threats are quite common from the socialist left.

So you feel personally attacked to have your identity in the real world coupled with your identity on physorg? Would that not imply that you feel threatened by having what you say here tied to who you actually are? That sounds like you have an issue with you, not with me.

Who owns the servers and communication lines that transmits data?

The backbone? Primarily the US government actually. The military infrastructure on the backbone is utterly massive. Verizon is the next largest holder if I recall correctly.

Except we now have more govt control (ownership) thanks to FCC.

The FCC gains zero control over the internet except in cases of illegal activity (like child porn or theft of Intellectual property), or when an ISP is promoting unfair business practices.

The regulations provide no ownership. Stop listening to Beck and Limbaugh.