Rush Limbaugh

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

The Rush Limbaugh Show Main Menu

Listen to it Button

RUSH: I knew it was gonna happen. This subject lit ’em up out there, folks. Our phone lines are melting with people wanting to get in here and tell me that I don’t have the slightest idea what I’m talking about. They’re livid out there, right, Snerdley? Some of them are. I knew this was gonna be the case.

Let’s go Cincinnati. Mike, you’re first. I’m glad you called. It’s great to have you on the program today. Hello.

CALLER: Great to be here, Rush. I’m a young person who disagrees with your presentation of net neutrality. I don’t disagree with politicians and when they take control of a concept like net neutrality, but they change it to mean whatever they think it means like universal access to broadband or reducing the cost of large corporations like — reducing the amount a large corporation like an ISP can charge. But what net neutrality is really about is freedom of information that flows on the Internet.

RUSH: No. It’s not that. You’ve been made to believe that. But it isn’t.

CALLER: Well, let me show you an example that’s happening right now about net neutrality, and that’s Netflix. Netflix is providing services to their customers.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: And they pay an agreed-amount rate for a certain amount of bandwidth from their servers.

RUSH: Right.

CALLER: And their customers pay a certain amount for a certain amount of traffic leaving their connections. Now, the ISP sits in the middle and says, “Wait a sec. Netflix is really popular, and I’m not getting paid enough” even though they agreed to charge a certain amount, and what they’re doing is they’re seeing that information traveling between Netflix and Netflix customers, and they’re slowing it down.

RUSH: Why? Now, wait. In the first place, don’t misunderstand my tone here. I’m not trying to sound insulting. I’m genuinely curious. Do you honestly really believe that the example you just gave is why the whole subject of net neutrality has come up and why it is going to be implemented?

CALLER: Whether the Obama administration and the FCC come down with regulation or legislation that leads to the original intent like you think, because Netflix has already been forced to pay ISPs to stop them from limiting access for their services, so their customers can just get what they paid for, get what they already paid for.

RUSH: Wait a minute. If it’s already been rectified or if somebody’s in the process of being punished already for doing this, why, then, do you need everything else that’s gonna come at us with net neutrality in order to address this?

CALLER: I’m not saying that the FCC should proceed with their decisions without opening it up to a public vote, but it’s — ISPs are acting like the mafia of the Internet by shaking down large public companies like Netflix and Amazon and the cost is passed along to the consumers —

RUSH: Look. I’m sorry. You have fallen for this hook, line, and sinker, and the reason that you have stems from — and I’m not trying to be insulting. It stems from a lack of understanding of simple economics. I’ve read this example. You have uttered this example almost word-for-word in how I have read it as a complaint for years. Netflix is used in this example ’cause it’s extremely popular with people.


RUSH: What is Netflix, eight bucks a month? $7.99 a month if you get it like I have it through iTunes on my Apple ID. Eight bucks a month? For crying out loud, and you’re complaining about the service? Eight bucks a month?


RUSH: Let me — because we got a lot of people that have run to their telephones to call me and try to correct me and tell me, some of them, that I don’t know what I’m talking about. I knew it was gonna happen. I knew that I was gonna hit the mother lode with this, so I’m eager to talk to these people. I just want to say one thing to all of you, and I want to stress here that I’m not trying to irritate you.

Now, I don’t know how many of you have tuned in here thinking of me what you have heard about me elsewhere, but whatever you do, you do not need to be contentious. There isn’t any reason to be, and I have no desire to insult you. I really want all of you to get this right. I want all of you to understand what is happening to our country. Now, to all of you — and I’m gonna take the calls, and I’m gonna gladly and happily engage you in conversation about this, but I want to tell you at the outset that not one of you can argue with me.

Now, wait. The reason you can’t argue with me is that you don’t know what it is. Obama has not released the details of this plan. You may think you know what net neutrality is, but you haven’t the slightest idea. He’s keeping it secret. You don’t know what it is. You may think it’s about getting even with these “mafia ISPs” that are making it problematic for you to watch Netflix. You may think that’s what this is about, and if you do, God, I wish you’d realize that it’s not about that. You’ve been sold that it’s about that to get your support.

This is how proponents of big government do this. They boil issues down, they found out what it is about anything they want to take over and control that makes you unhappy, and then they let it be known they’re gonna fix it for you. So if you are paying Netflix $7.99 a month and occasionally the content buffers and you think you’re getting ripped off by a mafia middleman slowing or throttling down your feed, eight dollars a month, do you realize — you can’t go to one movie for eight bucks. You can’t park, you can’t go to a movie, you can’t buy popcorn with or without coconut oil and your jumbo size 95-ounce soft drink, other than New York City, eight bucks. What do you think you’re gonna get for eight bucks a month?

Now, you may think that’s cruel, but do you realize there are people paying more than eight bucks for Netflix and they’re not having these problems that you are. There are certain economic realities about this. When I say economic realities, I’m talking about the laws of economics. And I think in this country economics is woefully mistaught. It’s a subject that is largely esoteric to people, and it need not be. Economics is pretty logical. Logic is a problem, though. Logic doesn’t allow for opinions. Logic is what it is and sometimes you don’t agree with the end result of logic.

Our last caller gave me the Netflix example. I remember reading about it on one of my tech blogs. Some tech blogger was just livid. He was fit to be tied, almost word-for-word what our caller said. So I sent an e-mail off to my economics advisor, Professor Hazlett, who is at Clemson, and he wrote back a long and detailed answer expressing sympathy for the poor man, but explaining why the attitude held by the poor man could end up screwing it for everybody else.

He made the point that any Internet service provider is going to have a wide and varied customer base. He’s gonna have his best customers who pay him the most and expect the best, and he’s gonna have his customers that pay $15 bucks a month. He says it’s only natural the people that pay the provider a thousand, $1,500, $2,000 a month are gonna get first dibs on high speed and access. And they happen to be subsidizing service for $15 bucks a month.

So the guy paying $15 bucks a month is expecting to get the same service, i.e., speeds and availability as somebody paying $2,000 a month, and it just doesn’t work that way.

Now, this is a simplification of this, but I’m trying to make this as widely understood as possible. So the proponents of big government who want to come in and control every aspect of human life that they can and control everything that human beings are interested in, as much of that as they can, they’re not stupid.

They figure out what it is about any industry you hate. They figure out what it is about any industry that you need and really want but that you hate about it, and they come in and claim they understand and they’re gonna get even and they’re gonna fix it for you. So the whole concept of net neutrality can be reduced in one person’s mind to the fact that some mafia Internet service providers, the government is gonna finally make ’em play fair, and I’m not gonna have my content from Netflix buffered.

And they end up supporting net neutrality because they think the people ripping them off, the government’s gonna get even with ’em and gonna punish ’em, and gonna make ’em stop doing it to boot. In the meantime, over here net neutrality is a 302-page document of regulations that nobody has seen because Obama will not release it. Just like nobody knew what was in Obamacare before it was voted on, except those of us enterprising enough to find it, dig deep, and read the 2,000-plus pages. That’s why we knew what was in it. And even after we knew what was in it, spending time on this program telling people what was in it, we got people calling us, telling us we didn’t know what we were talking about even though they hadn’t ever seen it.

Now, our first caller, I’m sympathetic. I’m sympathetic to all of this. I want it all to work, too. But we’re not talking about deregulation here. We’re talking about just the exact opposite. The government, Barack Hussein O, personally, Hillary Clinton as far back as 1990 personally openly said they want control over the content of the Internet because there’s too much, way too much out there in opposition to them. Now, you’re tempted to say I don’t know what I’m talking about.

I beg you to search your memory banks. Do you remember all the times Obama and his buddies on the left have ripped Fox News? What do you think that’s about? They don’t like Fox News. They don’t want to try to get rid of Fox News. If they could get rid of Fox News, they would. How about me? How many times have you heard me ripped to smithereens by Obama and the Democrat Party over 25 years? They don’t like what I have to say, and if they could, would regulate me out of my job. And you are helping them when you support stuff like this.

You are helping the Barack Obamas and the Democrat Party take over this country and regulate it as such that anybody in opposition to them either ceases to operate or gets punished or both. It is the antithesis of freedom. It is the antithesis of democracy. And it is not going to result in better Netflix service for you. It’s gonna result in worse Netflix service for you because the business is gonna become less attractive to invest in. The government’s gonna regulate as much of it as they can, including revenue. What’s amazing to me, you would think that everyone would know by now how dangerous it is to allow Barack Obama and his minions to access any private sector venture, or venue, after six years of screwing up everything.

How’s that global warming thing working out for those of you who believe in it? How’s the wind energy business doing for you? Solyndra and those clowns, solar, how’s that all working out for you? None of what they promise you ever happens. How’s that health care system working out for you? Have you discovered yet the fine you’re gonna have to pay? Have you discovered yet that the refund you get from the IRS is gonna go to pay your fine for not having health insurance if you decide not to have it?

I don’t understand why in the world, when it’s right in front of your face, what this administration means for freedom, why you want to help ’em take yours away. ‘Cause it’s not about whoever is throttling your access to Netflix. They just want you to think that. That’s how they’re getting your support. They’re reducing you to a single-issue person and making you think you’re a consumer activist for the little guy, when all you are is a willing accomplice to their taking over what is already the freest media enterprise in the world today. They are not going to increase the freedom that exists and the liberty that exists. They are going to regulate it.

But here’s another clincher. In addition to the fact that you — now, I’m gonna take the calls, as I said, and you can tell me what you think, but you cannot argue with me because you don’t know what it is. Nobody does. Obama is hiding it. And he has allowed people to think that it is certain things in order to garner their support for it.

But here’s the other clincher. The FCC has no power to do this. Something like this can only happen legislatively with an act of Congress. Obama’s YouTube video demanding that the FCC do this should have sent up red flags to everybody who appreciates liberty and freedom, the Constitution, separation of powers. It should have made everybody quake in their boots. Instead, a bunch of young people applauded it. But Congress has chosen not to act on this, whether or not it had the authority, but Obama cannot, the FCC cannot do this on its own willy-nilly.

I was wrong. It’s a 330-page set of regulations, not 302, and they’ve kept it secret. It will be implemented before the details are known. Yet people support it. And I know why. We can’t get past this idea that the government is the great equalizer, the government’s the great fixer, the government sees injustice and the government’s gonna run in there and fix it. Social injustice, economic injustice, political injustice, whatever it is, we have ultimate faith the government’s gonna make it right, despite the evidence right in front of our faces that they never do get it right.


RUSH: So I checked the e-mail and there’s a bunch of, “Hey, you didn’t really address what your caller said about the Netflix and the mafia Internet service providers. You kind of skirted that.”

I did not. Let me address it now. I’m trying to stay focused, but if you want me to correct what he thinks, I’ll be glad to do it. I’m in this position here to provide you information. I want you to know the truth about it. The only vested interest I have in this is freedom, folks. I don’t have any money invested in this. None of this matters to me. The money, the cost, I’ve got my Internet speeds taken care of ’cause I pay for it. It’s fine and dandy. I’m fortunate, I have the ability to do so.

I don’t have any financial investment in the outcome of this. My investment in this solely is about liberty and human freedom and my distrust of anybody who wants to take over everything in this country as much as they can and regulate it. They don’t know what they’re doing, they’re not gonna make it better, and it scares the hell out of me. I am trying to get everybody up to speed on defending your own freedom.

It isn’t about me. It isn’t about any investment I’ve got. I couldn’t care less about any of that. And I’m not doing this to be provocative. I’m not doing this to get you all ticked off. I’m not doing this to get a bunch of people tweeting about me. I really care about freedom and liberty, and I really care when people are about to throw it away, because you don’t get it back without shedding a lot of blood. And this is so unnecessary.

Now, this Netflix example, this is not even about net neutrality. Comcast versus Netflix is not even about net neutrality. And again, I’m gonna tell you, you can’t argue with me about net neutrality ’cause you don’t know what it is. I told you what I think. I think websites are gonna get licensed. I don’t see anybody in the tech blogs I read talking about that. They haven’t even conceived of that. “What do you mean, register my website and get it licensed?”

Well, what do you think regulation means? They’re gonna regulate the content. They’re gonna regulate what you say. They’re gonna regulate what your commenters say. You’re gonna have to get a license to operate a website, and the Federal Election Commission is gonna have purview, and they’re gonna be measuring how much of what happens on your site is an in-kind political contribution. You haven’t the slightest idea what these people are planning. You haven’t seen it. I do ’cause I know them.

But about Netflix and Comcast. “The dispute between Netflix and Comcast is not a net neutrality issue because it does not have to do with how Comcast is treating Netflix’s traffic once it’s on the Comcast broadband network. Instead, it stems from a business dispute the two companies have over how Netflix is connecting to Comcast’s network.

This is not a net neutrality issue at all. It’s a good old private sector competition issue. Netflix is likely hoping to pressure Comcast into offering better terms in its commercial business deal. It’s implied that this issue is somehow related to net neutrality in order to get your support, but it isn’t related to it at all. This is about Netflix not wanting to pay Comcast any money for delivering broadband, just like you don’t want to pay Netflix any money, just like you don’t want to pay Comcast any money. Well, Netflix doesn’t want to pay Comcast, either.

Some cable companies have agreed to not demand more money because they realize Netflix attracts a whole lot of customers. Have you seen all the brand-new content providers popping up because Netflix is so cheap? There are content providers now offering their content for nothing to get you looped in. Netflix attracts more customers to their system, these other cable companies and they’re not complaining about it. But Comcast, it has nothing to do with net neutrality.

“What FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has said and other Internet experts also confirm is that the Net neutrality rules originally passed in 2010 were never intended to cover these interconnection business deals,” like the deal between Netflix and Comcast. And if you think it is, it’s because these are very smart people who have figured out what it is that upsets you about your Internet, and they are telling you that net neutrality will fix your grievance just to get you to support it.

But this dispute between Comcast and Netflix is no different than your dispute between yourself and your ISP. You don’t want to pay ’em, and Netflix doesn’t want to pay Comcast. We have a standoff here.


RUSH: These people are relentless. I just checked the e-mail. It’s getting fun now. I checked the e-mail. “So what was your source for what you just said about Comcast and Netflix?” You know, I withheld that on purpose, knowing full well that some of you malcontents out there would not trust me. It’s CNET, one of your all-time favorite tech websites. CNET! Yes siree. Even CNET says that the Netflix push for “neutrality” isn’t about net neutrality.

All it’s about is Netflix trying to pressure Comcast to give them a better and cheaper deal. Netflix doesn’t want to pay because they think you’re already paying because you’re paying Comcast. See, here’s the thing, folks. Comcast and other broadband providers do not control your Internet traffic end to end. The content you request — a website, YouTube video, whatever it is that you have requested to watch, the content — travels over several networks before it reaches you in your device.

Broadband providers only control the traffic once it’s on their network, and the net neutrality people say that it’s that piece of the work that net neutrality is designed to make sure stay freeze and open and thereby looping you in to thinking net neutrality is all about cheap content arriving uninterrupted on your device. Meawhile, Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler (who is simply Obama’s “butt boy” on this) yesterday, “again declined to publicly release his aggressive net neutrality proposal prior to a vote.”

Yes, nobody can see it before they vote on it, and you think this is good? They’ve got 330 pages of regulations that are going to just take over the Internet. It’ll never be the same again, and it’s not gonna be better in any way, shape, manner, or form. It’s so bad, they don’t want to let anybody see it before they vote on it, despite the fact that the process of adopting such rules was described as irresponsible by Senator Obama in 2007.

Can I quote him for you? Senator Obama, your hero, in 2007 said, “It’s irresponsible for the FCC to vote on rules that have not been released to the public.” Well, that doesn’t mean anything now because Obama’s president, and when he’s president, the only thing that does make sense for him and the only way it is gonna happen is the FCC is gonna vote on rules unreleased to the public. Back when he was a senator, it was “irresponsible” for this to happen. Now that he’s president, it’s the only way it’s gonna happen.

From TheHill.com, just today: “A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned. Mignon Clyburn…” This is the daughter of James Clyburn of the Congressional Black Caucasians. Mignon Clyburn. Her dad must have really loved steak. Mignon Clyburn? It might have been her mother who really liked steak.

Somebody in that family really liked steak. They named their daughter after cut of, well, filet mignon. “Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said. The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to – puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.”

But nobody knows the rules. Nobody’s seen them. You call this a democracy? And, by the way, one other thing. I anticipate some other objections from you young Millennials listening to me who are predisposed to disagree with me because of what do you think my “brand” is. I have no interest in partisan politics. I’m not defending Republicans. This, to me, is not a Republican issue. I have nothing to do with that. This is strictly, totally, painfully about trying to hold onto freedom.

We’re losing it every day in little bitty clumps. Hell, it’s not that we’re losing it; we’re giving it away. We’re giving it away to this agency, that agency. We’re giving away our immigration system. We’re giving away our economy. My God, we’re giving away everything. Now we want to give away our freedom on the Internet? This is not partisan to me. I have no interest in this whatsoever. It’s totally a liberty and freedom. It’s maintaining this country as it was founded issue to me.

All right. We go back to the phones and Melbourne, Florida. Mark, it’s great to have you on the program. I’m really glad you waited, and hello, sir.

CALLER: Hey, how you doing today, Rush?

RUSH: I’m great, thank you.

CALLER: Hey, I’m in 100% total agreement with you. I pay like nine bucks a month for Netflix, I pay 25 bucks for high-speed DSL Internet, I rarely rebuffer. And that’s the term that these guys better get used to if this net neutrality goes through because they’ll be rebuffering and rebuffering and rebuffering. My kid can be upstairs on YouTube, and I can be downstairs watching Netflix uninterrupted. So it’s all about free. “What can the government give me? Oh, I want free Internet! I want cheap health care.” Well, guess what? Neither of those are gonna happen. We already know what happened with health care.

RUSH: Right, and even if it isn’t about free, don’t forget the class envy, the class warfare that has been drummed up here. This is central theme of this is hatred for ISPs, hatred just like we hated Big Tobacco, hated Big Oil. The left has ginned up all this hatred for the providers of this content and service, and they got people hating them and thinking that government’s gonna get even with ’em with net neutrality.

‘Cause these little guys can’t fight ’em by themselves, but the government can do it for them, and that’s part of the allure as well. You’re also right. “I want it free! I shouldn’t have to pay to be able to watch I Love Lucy. I shouldn’t have to pay for it.” That just blows me away, too. How the people that provide this content and produce it, create it, how they get paid, if the users don’t want to pay anything for it?

CALLER: Well, and their technical mental midgetry also comes into play because they really don’t understand all the what-fors and whys, what it takes to get the service to them. When the providers have to add more and more and more servers to absorb all of this cheap Internet, it’s just gonna bog it down, and they’re certainly not gonna put a bunch of financial capital into more servers just so they can provide better service for less cost.

RUSH: Exactly.

CALLER: It’s supply and demand.

RUSH: In your estimation, that’s why people are gonna be seeing the word “buffering” or “rebuffering” more and more.

CALLER: Exactly. I work in IT so I know it to be true.

RUSH: You work in IT so you know it to be true. Well, I’m glad to have your endorsement out there, Mark, I really am.

CALLER: All right, Rush, you have a great day.

RUSH: You do the same. To Atlanta next. Johnny, great to have you with us, sir. You’re next. Hello.

CALLER: Hey, Rush, thanks for having me on. Love the show. So, I’m not saying that this regulation is at all the way to solve any kind of problem. Obviously we don’t know what’s in it so we can’t really judge it. But I do think there’s one part of this debate that at least merits some attention, and that’s the idea of tiered Internet. I don’t know if you heard about that. So just to give you an example, let’s take a very popular site like Fox News, even your site.

So what if the Internet companies could be able to regulate traffic to the site? So, for example, if someone’s got basic Internet and they trying to go to Fox News or your site, and instead of getting the content, a little pop-up comes up and says, “Hey, you actually don’t have to access to that site, because you don’t have one of the tiered plans that includes that site.” Shouldn’t we be in favor of at least some regulation so that service providers wouldn’t be able to restrict access to content across the Internet?

RUSH: Okay. That’s great question. That’s a absolutely wonderful, great question. Are you prepared for my answer?


RUSH: Net neutrality is gonna give you exactly what you just described. The government is going to assume the position of determining which sites are being accessed more than others. If, say, Fox News or RushLimbaugh.com is being read by many more people than, say, MSNBC’s site, the government will say, “It’s not fair! Not enough people are accessing MSNBC.” So under the terms of neutrality, they will order Fox News or RushLimbaugh.com throttled and access steered to MSNBC. That’s what they want. What you just described is exactly what they’re gonna do with this.

CALLER: But isn’t it the interesting thing, though, that that idea has been kicked around by Internet service providers for years now, of providing a service to customers that will be a tiered service? So it wouldn’t be the government doing it. It would be the ISPs themselves.

RUSH: It means you’re gonna have the choice to opt in. Look, it’s like anything else. If some ISPs want to offered tiered service, it’s all up to whether or not they can sell it, make a profit offering it, have other people sign up to it and use it as the way it’s intended, however that would be. What I’m telling you, Johnny, is… All right, let me throw one more thing in the mix here. I’m just speaking off the cuff here and off the top of my head.

Two or three years ago I had an occasion to speak with, shall we say, somebody intimately involved with what all of this is about. What you just described is exactly what this person was trying to get me to pay attention to. This person was trying to warn me that net neutrality is actually going to mean the policing of content. While you think it’s about cost and access to your entertainment, what it really is going to be is that.

Remember, we haven’t seen the regulations ’cause they’re keeping them under lock and key, 330 pages. What it’s really going to be is people in positions of political power making choices. For example, MSNBC has no audience. Nobody wants to watch ’em. It’s so bad they’re starting to fire everybody now. It’s so bad, MSNBC is almost on the verge of announcing that they are going to abandon liberal ideology as their format.

I have the story in the Stack today. It’s that bad. Now, if we’re regulated the way they want to regulate the Internet, and if the signal to your TV set arrived the same way it does to your computer, Obama, or whatever, could look at the fact that MSNBC has got no viewers and see that Fox’s got all of them and CNN’s got some, and that’s not fair. “This isn’t neutral; this isn’t equal,” and they would take action to make sure that probably Fox would lose some viewers by having access denied.

So that MSNBC, under the guise of that point of view: Having an equal right to exposure. But here’s the thing. Folks, I’m not making this up. When net neutrality first came along, when I was first warned about it by a government official during the Bush administration about this, I was told that the people dreaming of this are actually dreaming of controlling content, political content, and making sure that one political point of view does not have more exposure than another.

Meaning if there’s 50 conservative sites and 10 liberal sites, the 50 conservative sites are gonna be punished. Access to them will be limited. ‘Cause it’s not fair. That’s what the original warning I received about net neutrality was. All this stuff you’re hearing about limiting your content provider and prices and Netflix, all that’s just hullabaloo to get you interested in it to get you supporting it, because they think they’ve made you believe they’re gonna fix your grievance.

But it really is about the Democrat Party making sure that there isn’t another Rush Limbaugh, making sure that there isn’t another Fox News on the Internet. It’s about making sure they don’t lose the battle for content control on the Internet. That’s what it really is all about. You can’t argue with me because you haven’t seen the regs. They’re not releasing them. You can argue with me all you want, but you have no ground to stand on.

You’re in quicksand, you’re in a sinkhole because you don’t know. And you can tell me I’m full of it and all wet all you want, but I’m not. And you don’t know. How do I know? ‘Cause I know liberals. I know exactly who they are. I’ve been victimized by ’em I can’t tell you how many times over 25 years. I know exactly who they are. I know what their objectives are. I know what their wish list is. And I’m not on it, and neither is Fox News. They want control of the Internet for political, ideological content.


RUSH: Here is Byron in Baltimore. You’re next. It’s great to have you with us, Byron. Hello.

CALLER: Thank you so much, Rush. I appreciate the call. My wife and I really enjoy your show so much. I am a senior advisor engineer for a military defense contractor. We’ve been talking a lot about Netflix and so forth and I appreciate the various viewpoints, and I also appreciate the idea that we really don’t know what’s in this regulation yet. Given the Regime’s track record with laws and so forth, my hopes are not good right now that this is good for anybody.

RUSH: Yeah, this is what I don’t understand. With all of the evidence in front of everybody, I mean, did anybody think when Obama was elected he was gonna have his wife take over the food industry? The school lunch program? Did anybody think that? No. But he did. Did anybody think that health care was gonna become the abomination that it was? Everybody had good intentions associated with this. It’s right in front of everybody’s face what’s gonna happen here, and yet they don’t see the same danger that already we face in other areas. It boggles my mind.

CALLER: I’d like to suggest something, if I may.

RUSH: Sure.

CALLER: And that is that one of the big areas that are gonna be impacted by this is the military defense business. Now, why would that be true? I can contrast, being an engineer today and being an engineer back in the late seventies. In the late seventies when I needed information on a transistor, on a spectrum analyzer, whatever it was, I had to get the name of the manufacturer, find out where they’re located, call them up, talk to a sales guy, have them send me a brochure that could take anywhere from one to two weeks for me to get before I could even start doing anything with that component or device.

Today, if I need information on a spectrum analyzer, or if I need software for a spectrum analyzer, information on a transistor, I go online and in 10 minutes I can download whatever I need. Now, I’m one engineer working for one military defense contractor. All the people that do the same kinds of things that I do and the same manner that I do it in, and that’s a good percentage of that engineering community, are gonna be impacted by anything that impedes the flow of information, better and different, on the Internet.

RUSH: Think of your toilet getting stopped up with too much toilet paper. Well, you may not like that analogy. But then you might say, well, it’s the military, they’re gonna have an exemption. See, why should — that’s another ball of wax.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This