IS A GAG RULE INCLUDED IN THE "STIMULUS" BILL?

Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” —Ronald Reagan
With the decision to not release the over one thousand page compromise Bill that was rushed through the meeting of Pelosi, Reid and Rod Emanuel,the public and those who will be voting on this bill will have little or no time to read and digest the ontents of the "spendulus" bill being rammed down the throats of the American taxpayers. One thing that has been noted very little by the Media is the inclusion in this bill of a "Net Neutrality Rules"!

This semantic description of a gag rule for Conservative blogger and network web pages is an attempt to sneak just one of many dictatorial rules and regulations being pushed by the Left, that has absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy.

The House Democrats' $825 billion legislation released on Thursday was supposedly intended to "stimulate" the economy. Backers claimed that speedy approval was vital because the nation is in "a crisis not seen since the Great Depression" and "the economy is shutting down."

That's the rhetoric. But in reality, Democrats are using the 258-page legislation to sneak Net neutrality rules in through the back door.

The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "under served" areas. The U.S. Department of Commerce is charged with writing checks-with-many-zeros-on-them to eligible recipients, including telecommunications companies, local and state governments, and even construction companies and other businesses that might be interested.

The catch is that the federal largess comes with Net neutrality strings attached. The Commerce Department must ensure that the recipients "adhere to" the Federal Communications Commission's 2005 broadband policy statement (PDF)--which the FCC said at the time was advisory and "not enforceable," and has become the subject of a lawsuit before a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

One interpretation of the "adhere to" requirement is that a company like AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast that takes "stimulus" dollars to deploy broadband in, say,Texas must abide by these rules nationwide. (It's rather like the state of Texas demanding that a broadband provider filter out porn nationwide in exchange for a lucrative government contract.)

In addition, recipients must operate broadband and high-speed wireless networks on an "open access basis." The FCC,now under Democratic control, is charged with deciding what that means. Congress didn't see fit to include a definition in the bill.

This, just like the embarrassing press conference that was held by former New York Federal Reserve Board Chief, and new Treasury Secretary, Tim Geitner. His presentation was full of generalities and little or no specifics. These will follow, and you can bet the Farm, that they will be to reign in the soaring popularity of conservative blogs and web pages.

A recent study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce says that the absence of Net neutrality laws or similar federally mandated regulations has spurred telecommunications companies to invest heavily in infrastructure, and changing the rules "would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, investment, and innovation."

Now, perhaps extensive Net neutrality regulations are wise. But enough people seem to have honest, deep-seated reservations about them to justify a sincere discussion of costs and benefits--rather than having the requirements stealthily injected into what supposed to be an emergency save-the-economy bill scheduled for a floor vote within a week or so.
And Obama administration was supposed to be about openness and Change for the better!
Source:CnetNews.com