Today's Wall Street Journal commentary "Take the Palestinians' 'No' for an Answer" offers the choice…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Quote of the Day: Trump Beats the "Experts" Again

Today's Wall Street Journal commentary "Take the Palestinians' 'No' for an Answer" offers the choice quote of the day today, highlighting the way in which President Trump's decision to finally (and rightfully) relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem has once again proved him more prescient than the foreign policy "experts" who predicted dire consequences:

. This week's U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states - a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world."

. The piece also highlights how the Palestinians stand alone among nations who somehow claim entitlement…[more]

June 24, 2019 • 01:32 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
“Net Neutrality”: Regulating and Politicizing the Internet Print
By CFIF Staff
Monday, January 01 2007

What are the unintended consequences of Net Neutrality?

  • Net Neutrality would stifle much-needed private investment, at a time when policymakers should promote policies that encourage further investment and job creation. Broadband providers are investing billions of dollars in critical communications infrastructure to deploy advanced networks at a rapid pace, but so-called “Net Neutrality” legislation would diminish incentives to invest. In addition to stifling investment incentives, Net Neutrality could hinder public safety and homeland security, degrade the quality of consumers’ online experience, limit competition, and kill network innovation.

Is Net Neutrality a free speech protection?

  • No. Net Neutrality is essentially the “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet. Advocates on the Left mischaracterize the debate for political gain, but Net neutrality legislation is about mandating common carrier, nondiscrimination regulations for Internet service providers, not about protecting free speech. Net Neutrality is a key pillar in the information commons, anti-property rights and wealth redistribution agenda of the far Left. Supporters of Net Neutrality believe that all Internet infrastructure and online content should constitute public property – owned, operated and run by government bureaucrats.

What are some examples of real life consequences of Net Neutrality?

  • Everyone who has a broadband connection will experience more congestion and increased service interruptions if providers are restricted in managing traffic on their networks. Consumers will also pay higher prices to get online (a de facto tax), notice a decline in service options, and have far fewer choices online. Net Neutrality will prohibit consumer-oriented services, such as video on demand, and stifle innovations in services that we cannot even envision today.
  • Net Neutrality will also slow down and prohibit several critical health information technology applications. For example, Net Neutrality would require that data sent over the Internet to a doctor in a large city using an advanced telemedicine application to remotely monitor a patient with a heart condition in a rural town be treated the same as all other traffic online. Simply put, Net Neutrality regulations would strip networks of the ability to prioritize lifesaving medical information as it travels over the Internet, meaning your EKG results may get slowed down and degraded because the kid next door is downloading movies or a bad actor is flooding the network with SPAM.

 


to view the pdf click here.

Question of the Week   
Where in the U.S. Constitution is the requirement for a decennial census?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"This week's debates will be the first time millions of Americans meet the cast of Democrats trying to take out President Donald Trump.That's precisely what has party brass terrified.Interviews with nearly 20 Democratic elected officials, party chiefs, labor leaders and operatives the past week revealed an air of foreboding verging on alarm that the debates will degenerate into a two-night, bare-knuckle…[more]
 
 
—Holly Otterbein, Reporter for Politico
— Holly Otterbein, Reporter for Politico
 
Liberty Poll   

In response to the escalating series of provocations by Iran, do you believe Pres. Trump's measured response, including positioning of military assets and documenting Iran's actions to allies, is better policy than immediate retaliatory strikes?