NET NEUTRALITY - FCC CONTROL - THE END OF INTERNET

Author Topic: NET NEUTRALITY - FCC CONTROL - THE END OF INTERNET  (Read 18209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

charrington

  • Guest
NET NEUTRALITY - FCC CONTROL - THE END OF INTERNET
« on: June 23, 2011, 02:44:50 PM »
The Dutch may become the first in Europe to use Skype and other web-based services on smartphones for no extra charge.

On 22 June, the Dutch Parliament passed a law stopping mobile operators from blocking or charging extra for voice calling done via the net.

The bill must now pass through the Dutch senate, but its passage is expected to be a formality.

The move may prove crucial in Europe's on-going debate over net neutrality.

Net neutrality is controversial around the world, with heated discussions on the subject taking place in the United States, Europe and many other regions.

The idea it enshrines is that all internet traffic should be treated equally, regardless of its type - be it video, audio, e-mail, or the text of a web page.

However, ISPs said they need to discriminate because unchecked traffic from some applications, such as games or file-sharing programs, can slow down their entire network for all customers.

As a result many ISPs throttle, block or charge extra for many bandwidth hungry applications and content.

This has become an issue for content creators, who do not want to have a two-tier internet and would like users to enjoy whatever they produce in the best way possible.

Before now the issue has largely been confined to home net access rather than mobiles.


Extra fees.

The European Union endorses net neutrality principles, which state that telecommunication companies may charge extra for some services, but need to tell customers what they are doing.

The European Commission has adopted a "wait and see" approach with Neelie Kroes, Commissioner for the Digital Agenda, stating in April that Brussels would spend 2011 "closely looking at current market practices".

Ms Kroes promised to present the findings and publicly name "operators engaging in doubtful practices" at the end of 2011.

Taking action

So far, the Netherlands is the second country to enshrine the net neutrality concept into national law, after Chile.

The Chilean bill was approved in July 2010 and finally implemented in May 2011

While advocates of net neutrality idea praised the Dutch government for the move, the country's telecommunications companies were disappointed.

All major mobile network providers, including Vodafone, T-Mobile and the former Dutch state telecom Royal KPN NV, had lobbied against the bill, warning that they may raise subscription prices if the law was passed.

Vodafone said the law would inevitably "lead to a large increase in prices for mobile internet for a large group of consumers" as it could no longer single out heavy users for higher charges.

In a statement, KPN said that it regretted "that parliament didn't take more time for this legislation".

It was KPN's initial actions that prompted Dutch politicians to react, after it announced plans to charge customers extra for using Skype and WhatsApp, a free text messaging service.

A public outcry followed with users saying they were unhappy with the pricing policy and many questioning how KPN knew they were using these applications in the first place.

After the country's consumer rights watchdog asked to investigate possible privacy violations, the issue got all the way to the parliament.

Labor MP Martijn van Dam, one of the bill's co-authors, said that KPN was similar to "a postal worker who delivers a le...
Continued...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-13886440


Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: Netherlands makes net neutrality a law
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2011, 11:12:14 PM »
So easy to solve!

Let individual ISPs do their own thing, based on market demand. Get the state out of it completely and let people trade with one another however they see fit. Just think of the benefits: no taxes, no regulations, no foreign hassles, more time and money for us, a less stressful life and the list goes on.

We can figure it out for ourselves as we go!
"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King, Jr.

Jordan

  • Guest
NET NEUTRALITY - FCC CONTROL - THE END OF INTERNET
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2011, 01:50:15 AM »
Get ready, America—net neutrality finally comes to the Internet on November 20, 2011.

That's the plan, at least. The FCC has just filed its final "open Internet" rules (PDF) with the Federal Register, which will publish them tomorrow and make them official. The rules go into effect on November 20, nearly a year after they were passed over Republican opposition on a 3-2 vote. (One of the FCC Commissioners who voted against the rules now works for Comcast.)

But the plan will likely be derailed by lawsuits. Two, by Verizon and MetroPCS, were filed earlier this year but tossed because the rules had yet to be finalized. With tomorrow's printing in the Federal Register, the litigation floodgates will be thrown open and and complaints about the government overstepping its authority can start pouring in.

Those complaints might well meet with success, given how the FCC went about the whole process. Rather than reclassifying broadband services in such a way that the FCC has clear jurisdiction over them, the agency relied instead on its much weaker "ancillary jurisdiction." (The legal rationale for this begins on p. 77 of the final rules, and the FCC gamely makes a case that it has the proper authority.) As law professor James Grimmelmann noted today in our subscriber-only webchat, "The FCC is in a real tangle here. I think if they reclassified broadband service (long story), they'd have a better shot at getting their rules to stick."

As for the rules, they're the same modest regulations adopted back in December. Here's the FCC's own summary:

    First, transparency: fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and commercial terms of their broadband services. Second, no blocking: fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services. Third, no unreasonable discrimination: fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

Mobile networks still have broad leeway to discriminate and throttle and even block certain apps, though some of the most obviously objectionable activities are forbidden.

On the miraculous off-chance that no lawsuits are filed, however, we'll have a side of net neutrality lite to accompany Thanksgiving's pumpkin pie. But ISPs don't like constraints, no matter how modest, so the matter will probably be decided by federal judges.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/09/us-net-neutrality-rules-finalized-in-effect-november-20.ars

Jordan

  • Guest
House takes Senate's bad Internet censorship bill, tries making it worse
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2011, 11:54:54 PM »
Imagine a world in which any intellectual property holder can, without ever appearing before a judge or setting foot in a courtroom, shut down any website's online advertising programs and block access to credit card payments. The credit card processors and the advertising networks would be required to take quick action against the named website; only the filing of a “counter notification” by the website could get service restored.

It's the world envisioned by Rep. Lamar Hunt (R-TX) in today's introduction of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the US House of Representatives. This isn't some off-the-wall piece of legislation with no chance of passing, either; it's the House equivalent to the Senate's PROTECT IP Act, which would officially bring Internet censorship to the US as a matter of law.

Calling its plan a “market-based system to protect US customers and prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property,” the new bill gives broad powers to private actors. Any holder of intellectual property rights could simply send a letter to ad network operators like Google and to payment processors like MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal, demanding these companies cut off access to any site the IP holder names as an infringer.

The scheme is much like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's (DMCA) "takedown notices," in which a copyright holder can demand some piece of content be removed from sites like YouTube with a letter. The content will be removed unless the person who posted the content objects; at that point, the copyright holder can decide if it wants to take the person to court over the issue.

Here, though, the stakes are higher. Rather than requesting the takedown of certain hosted material, intellectual property owners can go directly for the jugular: marketing and revenue for the entire site. So long as the intellectual property holders include some “specific facts” supporting their infringement claim, ad networks and payment processors will have five days to cut off contact with the website in question.

The scheme is largely targeted at foreign websites which do not recognize US law, and which therefore will often refuse to comply with takedown requests. But the potential for abuse—even inadvertent abuse—here is astonishing, given the terrifically outsized stick with which content owners can now beat on suspected infringers.
Blockade

One thing private actors can't do under the new bill is actually block a site from the Internet, though it hardly matters, because the government has agreed to do it for them. The bill gives government lawyers the power to go to court and obtain an injunction against any foreign website based on a generally single-sided presentation to a judge. Once that happens, Internet providers have 5 days to “prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.”

The government can also go after anyone who builds a tool designed for the "circumvention or bypassing" of the Internet block. Such tools already exist as a result of the US government's ongoing campaign to seize Internet domain names it believes host infringing content; they can redirect visitors who enter the site's address to its new location. The government has already asked Web browser makers like Mozilla to remove access to these sorts of tools. Mozilla refused, so the new bill just tries to ban such tools completely. (Pointing your computer's browser to a foreign DNS server in order to view a less-censored Internet still appears to be legal.)

Search engines, too, are affected, with the duty to prevent the site in question “from being served as a direct hypertext link.” Payment processors and ad networks would also have to cut off the site.

Finally, and for good measure, Internet service providers and payment processors get the green light to simply block access to sites on their own volition—no content owner notification even needed. So long as they believe the site is “dedicated to the theft of US property,” Internet providers and payment processors can't be sued.
"Industry norms"

The House bill is shockingly sympathetic to a narrow subsection of business interests. For instance, buried deep in the back of the >70-page document is a requirement that the US Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator prepare a study for Congress. That study should analyze “notorious foreign infringers” and attempt to quantify the “significant harm inflicted by notorious foreign infringers.” (Talk about assuming your conclusions before you start.)

The report, which is specifically charged to give weight to the views of content owners, requests a set of specific policy recommendations that might “encourage foreign businesses to adopt industry norms to promote the protection of intellectual property globally.” Should the bill pass, the US government would be explicitly charged with promoting private “industry norms”—not actual laws or treaties—around the world.

In the request for the report, we can also see the IP maximalist lobby preparing for its next move: shutting off access to US capital markets and preventing companies from "offering stock for sale to the public" in the US.
Call it what it is

Not all censorship is bad—but we need to have an honest discussion about when and how to deploy it, rather than wrapping an unprecedented set of censorship tools in meaningless terms like "rogue site," or by calling a key section of the new bill the "E-PARASITE Act."

You don't have to support piracy—and we don't—to see the many problems with this new approach. Just today, the RIAA submitted to the US government a list of "notorious markets." As part of that list, the RIAA included "cyberlockers" like MegaUpload, which are "notorious services" that "thumb their noses at international laws, all while pocketing significant advertising revenues from trafficking in free, unlicensed copyrighted materials."

It's not hard to imagine how long it would take before such sites--which certainly do host plenty of user-uploaded infringing content--are targeted under the new law. Yet they have a host of legal uses, and cyberlockers like RapidShare have been declared legal by both US and European courts.

Not surprisingly, the new bill is getting pushback from groups like NetCoalition, which counts Google, Yahoo, and small ISPs among its members. "As leading brands of the Internet, we strongly oppose offshore 'rogue' websites and share policymakers' goal of combating online infringement of copyrights and trademarks," said executive director Markham Erickson in a statement.

"However, we do not believe that the solution lies in regulating the Internet and comprising its stability and security. We do not believe that it is worth overturning a decade of settled law that has formed the legal foundation for all social media. And finally, we do not believe that it is worth restricting free speech or providing comfort to totalitarian regimes that seek to control and restrict the Internet freedoms of their own citizens."

Dozens of law professors have also claimed the original PROTECT IP Act, which contains most of the same ideas, is unconstitutional. But the drumbeat for some sort of censorship is growing louder.
Photograph by Tyler Menezes
Further reading

    * The bill text (PDF) (static.arstechnica.net)

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/house-takes-senates-bad-internet-censorship-bill-makes-it-worse.ars

Jordan

  • Guest
Looks like Congress has declared war on the internet
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2011, 10:31:32 AM »
Many internet users in the United States have watched with horror as countries like France and Britain have proposed or instituted so-called “three strikes” laws, which cut off internet access to those accused of repeated acts of copyright infringement. Now the U.S. has its own version of this kind of law, and it is arguably much worse: the Stop Online Piracy Act, introduced in the House this week, would give governments and private corporations unprecedented powers to remove websites from the internet on the flimsiest of grounds, and would force internet service providers to play the role of copyright police.

To recap a bit of history, the Stop Online Piracy Act or SOPA is the House version of a previous bill proposed by the Senate, which was known as the PROTECT-IP Act (a name that was an abbreviation for “Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property”). That in turn was a rewritten version of a previous proposed bill that was introduced in the Senate last year. Not wanting to be outdone by their Senate colleagues when it comes to really long acronyms, the House version is also known as the E-PARASITE Act, which is short for “Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation.”
Copyright holders win, free speech and an open Internet lose

What it really is, however, is a disaster for the internet. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes in a post on the proposed legislation, the law would not only require ISPs to remove websites from the global network at the request of the government or the courts (by blocking any requests to the central domain-name system that directs internet traffic), but would also be forced to monitor their users’ behavior in order to police acts of copyright infringement. Providers who do not comply with these requests and requirements would be subject to sanctions. And in many cases, legal hearings would not be required. As Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) said of the PROTECT-IP Act:

    At the expense of legitimate commerce, PIPA’s prescription takes an overreaching approach to policing the Internet when a more balanced and targeted approach would be more effective. The collateral damage of this approach is speech, innovation and the very integrity of the Internet.

In effect, the new law would route around many of the protections in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, including the “safe harbor” provisions (a number of law professors have said that they believe the proposed legislation would be unconstitutional because it is a restraint on freedom of speech). The idea that ISPs and internet users can avoid penalties if they remove content once they have been notified that it is infringing, for example, wouldn’t apply under the new legislation — and anyone who provides tools that allow users to access blacklisted sites would also be subject to penalties.

In addition to using what some are calling the “internet death penalty” of removing infringing websites from the DNS system so they can’t be found, the proposed bill would also allow copyright holders to push for websites and services to be removed from search engine results and to have their supply of advertising cut off — and would require that payment companies like PayPal and ad networks comply with these orders. If you liked what PayPal and others did when they shut off donations to WikiLeaks, you’re going to love the new Stop Online Piracy Act.
Creating a firewall around the internet, just like China

According to Techdirt, which has been a vocal critic of the bill and its predecessors, the new legislation would create a “Great Firewall of America,” similar to the firewall that the Chinese government uses to keep its citizens from accessing certain websites and servers that it deems to be illegal. Techdirt’s Mike Masnick notes that the new bill actually expands the range of websites that could be targeted by the bill: the previous version referred to sites that were “dedicated to infringing activities” with no other obvious purpose, but the new law would allow the government to target any site that has “only limited purpose or use” other than infringement (by the government’s definition).

The bottom line is that if it passes and becomes law, the new act would give the government and copyright holders a giant stick — if not an automatic weapon — with which to pursue websites and services they believe are infringing on their content. With little or no requirement for a court hearing, they could remove websites from the internet and shut down their ability to be found by search engines or to process payments from users. DMCA takedown notices would effectively be replaced by this nuclear option, and innocent websites would have to fight to prove that they deserved to be restored to the internet — a reversal of the traditional American judicial approach of being assumed innocent until proven guilty — at which point any business they had would be destroyed.

That might make for the kind of internet that media and entertainment conglomerates would prefer, but it would clearly be a much diminished version of the internet we take for granted. Opponents of the bill have set up a website to try and convince voters to reject the legislation and tell their congressman not to support it. Embedded below is an interview that Senator Wyden did at the recent Web 2.0 Summit about his views on the PROTECT-IP Act and why it needs to be stopped:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypbJzfGQ3CE


http://gigaom.com/2011/10/27/looks-like-congress-has-declared-war-on-the-internet/

Offline sab

  • Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
Re: Looks like Congress has declared war on the internet
« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2011, 11:17:05 PM »
Making our own Mini Internet outside the ISP's will be a requirement soon.

Jordan

  • Guest
The MPAA will soon be able to block Americans' access to any website
« Reply #6 on: November 11, 2011, 09:24:05 AM »
The MPAA will soon be able to block Americans' access to any website, unless we fight back, hard.

Does your livelihood depend on the internet and tech? Do you work on a popular website? Could you request an in-person meeting with your representative to stop this bill? We'll tell you all the ways you can help, please sign up now, we need all hands on deck this month.


http://www.americancensorship.org/

Offline Fragment

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 222
Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and AOL Agree on New Web Censorship Guidelines
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2013, 05:20:14 PM »
This agreement lets them remove ads from your website and ultimately have it shut down if they feel your site violates copyright without court order.



Hitting the revenue streams of infringing sites has been a recurring theme in recent months.

Companies like PayPal have refused to do business with certain kinds of file-sharing sites, while payment processors and credit card companies have agreed to make life more difficult for controversial domains.

A key source of revenue for many sites is advertising and critics have been swift to attack companies that place ads on torrent, file-hosting and other similar sites for allegedly funding copyright infringement.

As such there has been pressure mounting for companies to be more choosy over where they try to attract business, and for advertising networks such as those run by Google to take better care over who they accept work from. Behind the scenes the voices have been heard.

Just a few moments ago David Jacobs SVP at AOL Networks revealed that together with Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, 24/7 Media, Adtegrity, Condé Nast and SpotXchange, his company has established a set of self-regulating best practices to address known infringing sites in their respective ad networks.

However, they also make a number of things abundantly clear from the start.

“Ad Networks do not control the content on third-party websites and are not able to remove websites from the Internet. Nor can Ad Networks engage in extensive or definitive fact finding to determine a particular party’s intellectual property rights,” the best practices document reads.

“Nevertheless, we believe it is useful for Ad Networks to maintain policies intended to discourage or prevent, to the extent possible, websites that are principally dedicated to selling counterfeit goods or engaging in copyright piracy and have no substantial non-infringing uses from participating in the Ad Network. The signatories to this Statement have individually decided to adopt these voluntary best practices in furtherance of that goal.”

The document says that signatories will implement procedures consistent with applicable laws, and will be mindful to balance copyright interests, including fair use, privacy and fair process. To this end, dialogue with content creators, rights holders, consumer organizations, and free speech advocates will be maintained.

The companies acknowledge that rightsholders are best placed to assess infringements of their own intellectual property rights but also note that if their word is to be acted upon, high standards of reporting are required.

“Accordingly, intellectual property holders are expected to be accurate in demonstrating infringement of their copyrights and trademark rights and to target only infringing conduct,” they explain.

Rightsholders will be expected to file correctly formatted complaints with the ad networks that show evidence that the allegedly infringing sites are indeed engaging in illegal activity.

In addition to identifying specific URLs where unauthorized activity is taking place, evidence must also include time-and-date-stamped screenshots and other technical information which shows that advertising from the ad network appears alongside the infringing activity.

In common with DMCA notices, the complaints must be accompanied by a statement that the person submitting the notice “has a good faith belief that the Illegitimate Activity is not authorized by the rights holder.” Whether that will encourage rightsholders to improve their accuracy and not misuse these new tools remains to be seen.

Valid notices will trigger an investigation and sites targeted by the infringement notices may well be asked to cease and desist from their infringing activity.

“An Ad Network may take steps including but not limited to requesting that the website no longer sell counterfeit goods or engage in copyright piracy, ceasing to place advertisements on that website (or pages within that website) until it is verified that the website (or pages within the website) is no longer selling counterfeit goods or engaging in copyright piracy, or removing the website from the Ad Network,” the agreement reads.

Websites affected by complaints will have a chance to appeal complaints via the filing of a counter-notice.


The advertising companies conclude by making it clear that aside from trying to deter infringing sites from advertising in the first instance, this is not a proactive arrangement.

“This Statement is not intended to impose a duty on any Ad Network to monitor its network to identify such websites,” the companies note.

“Similarly, it is understood that the voluntary best practices reflected in this Statement should not, and cannot, be used in any way as the basis for any legal liability or the loss of any applicable immunity or ‘safe harbor’ from such liability,” they sensibly conclude.

http://torrentfreak.com/tech-giants-sign-deal-to-ban-advertising-on-pirate-websites-130715/

AOL, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo agree on industry code to combat piracy, counterfeiting

http://www.zdnet.com/aol-google-microsoft-yahoo-agree-on-industry-code-to-combat-piracy-counterfeiting-7000018080/

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Verizon Victory on Net-Neutrality Rules Seen as Loss for Netflix
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2014, 10:12:29 PM »
Verizon Victory on Net-Neutrality Rules Seen as Loss for Netflix
14 January 2014
, by Scott Moritz and Cliff Edwards (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-01-14/verizon-victory-on-net-neutrality-rules-seen-as-loss-for-netflix.html

Excerpt:

Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ)’s legal victory over the Federal Communications Commission lets the carrier charge extra fees for speedier delivery of online content, potentially increasing costs for Netflix Inc. (NFLX) and other Internet companies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington decided in favor of Verizon yesterday, striking down the FCC’s so-called net-neutrality rules.

The regulations would have required Internet service providers to treat all online traffic equally, rather than giving preference to companies willing to pay extra fees for faster service.

With the restrictions lifted, carriers like Verizon, AT&T Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC) could be free to charge Internet companies higher rates for preferred treatment -- expenses that may ultimately be passed on to consumers.

Netflix, Google Inc.’s YouTube and Amazon.com Inc., meanwhile, face higher costs of doing business, changing the industry’s economics.

In Netflix’s case, the expenses could climb into the hundreds of millions of dollars a year, according to Wedbush Securities.

“Goodbye, open Internet,” said Jennifer Fritzsche, an analyst at Wells Fargo & Co. in Chicago.

“There’s definitely a risk that Netflix customers will have to pay more, though it will probably take at least a year for it to take effect.”

Carriers have argued that the biggest bandwidth hogs should share in the costs of sending their content to customers.

The idea is to charge Netflix or Google the equivalent of first-class handling, so that “House of Cards” or YouTube videos can get guaranteed quicker delivery.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-


Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2014, 08:03:30 PM »
US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMdK8SJPoB0

24 April 2014, AssociatedPress
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2014, 06:32:43 PM »
For Web Users, FCC Raises Specter of Unequal Internet
25 April 2014
, by Edmund Lee (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-04-25/for-web-users-fcc-raises-specter-of-unequal-internet.html

Excerpt:

Your Netflix bill might rise. You may have to switch Internet providers to get faster YouTube videos. Or, you may miss out on the next big thing on the Web.

Those are some of the concerns that consumer advocates are raising about U.S. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s proposal this week for new rules for Internet traffic.

The worry is that the changes would force consumers to pay higher fees to access certain kinds of information.

The guidelines would let broadband providers such as AT&T Inc. (T) charge content companies additional fees for preferential, faster routes to people in their homes.

For example, Hulu LLC could pay to have faster streaming of the latest episode of “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.”

The FCC is finding itself in the middle of an intensifying argument between the creators and distributors over how Internet traffic is managed and paid for. Caught in the middle are the consumers.

“This plan doesn’t bode well for consumers,” Delara Derakhshani, policy counsel for Consumers Union, a nonprofit advocacy group, said in a statement.

“It could create a tiered Internet where consumers either pay more for content and speed, or get left behind with fewer choices.”

To understand what Wheeler is proposing, it’s useful to know how Internet traffic works today.

All web companies, whether Google Inc. or a small startup, pay for their data to be carried onto the Internet.

Various companies called transit providers, such as Level 3 Communications Inc. (LVLT), route the traffic across the Internet’s backbone to broadband services like Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), which then deliver the content into people’s homes.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #12 on: May 13, 2014, 08:34:49 PM »
FCC afraid of Comcast, won't ensure net neutrality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdC_AwiJenE

13 May 2014, RT
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #13 on: May 16, 2014, 04:18:45 PM »
Net Neutrality an Oxymoron as FCC Decides Winners and Losers
16 May 2014
, by Todd Shields and Chris Strohm (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-05-15/fcc-advances-fast-lane-web-plan-on-net-neutrality-.html

Excerpt:

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler yesterday said “the prospect of a gatekeeper choosing winners and losers on the Internet is unacceptable.”

That’s what the FCC will be, no matter how it fashions final rules.

If it adopts toughened rules as demanded by advocacy groups, some Democratic lawmakers and content providers including Google Inc. (GOOG) and Netflix Inc. (NFLX), Wheeler and carriers foresee years of litigation.

If the FCC adopts the Wheeler proposal advanced yesterday to allow some priority arrangements as long as they aren’t “commercially unreasonable,” it could determine winners and losers on a case-by-case basis.

If it kills the preliminary proposal that passed 3-2, there would be no rules to prevent Internet service providers including AT&T Inc. (T), Comcast Corp.and Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) from charging to distribute Web content.

A court in January threw out the FCC’s open-access regulations.

“We look forward to a spirited discussion with Mr. Wheeler next week on the commission’s misguided vision of a heavily regulated Internet,” Representative Greg Walden, an Oregon Republican who heads the House commerce committee’s technology panel, said in a statement joined by committee Chairman Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican.

Yesterday’s vote opens a comment-and-review period intended to lead to a second vote and a final rule later this year.

There will be months of lobbying ahead by Internet providers, Web companies and digital rights activists in a fight they all say will dictate the future of online activity.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #14 on: May 17, 2014, 11:31:03 PM »
The FCC Issues its Proposal On Net Neutrality; Protesters Are Tossed from Hearing
17 May 2014
, by Tyler Durden (Zero Hedge)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-17/fcc-issues-its-proposal-net-neutrality-protesters-are-tossed-hearing
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
AT&T to Net Neutrality Has Congress Questioning Wheeler
« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2014, 06:05:15 PM »
AT&T to Net Neutrality Has Congress Questioning Wheeler
20 May 2014
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-05-20/u-s-lawmakers-call-for-hearings-on-at-t-comcast-deals.html

The top U.S. telecommunications regulator, Tom Wheeler, received an earful from lawmakers concerned about his pending decisions on Internet-traffic rules, spectrum auctions and cable-industry consolidation.

Two House Democrats used an appearance before Congress today by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wheeler to call for hearings into proposed acquisitions by AT&T Inc. (T) and Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)

Representatives Anna Eshoo and Doris Matsui of California said the sizes of the deals merit more scrutiny.

“Both are some of the largest mergers in our nation’s telecommunications history,” Matsui said today at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing about FCC oversight.

AT&T’s bid this week to buy satellite-TV provider DirecTV for $48.5 billion comes three months after Comcast proposed a $45.2 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable Inc. (TWC)

Just as Wheeler begins vetting those deals, he’s also facing criticism for a rewrite of rules governing Web traffic that may open the door to regulating what Internet service providers can charge.

“The question before the committee today is, are we soon going to be calling him Mr. Wheeler Dealer?” said Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican.

Fast Lanes

Barton said he sees “no reason to try to shoehorn some sort of a regulatory approach” to constrain Internet service providers from charging for carrying some Web traffic.

Wheeler last week won an FCC vote to possibly allow paid fast lanes for Web traffic, and to consider bringing Internet service providers under rules that could include rate regulation.

The tougher rules would be “burdensome” and “harmful to consumers, businesses and the future of the Internet,” said Representative Fred Upton, the Michigan Republican who is chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Wheeler said he is for “one Internet” that isn’t divided between fast and slow.

“When the consumer buys access to the Internet, they are buying access to the full Internet; and that’s what our rules attempt to protect,” Wheeler told the subcommittee.

Democrats also criticized the proposal. Wheeler’s plan could lead to “some giant company blocking content” on the Internet, said Eshoo, the top Democrat on the communications panel holding the hearing.

‘Massive Decisions’

Eshoo, along with Matsui, also focused on the recent spate of telecommunications deals.

Including the Comcast and AT&T bids, there is more than $130 billion of deals among cable and telecommunications providers that require regulatory approval.

That’s the greatest amount of pay-TV assets sitting in front of regulators including the FCC at one time, according to Bloomberg Industries.

Eshoo asked, “Can anyone here today piece together the effects of the Comcast-Time Warner merger and the AT&T-DirecTV (DTV) merger on consumers and a free and open Internet?”

“These are massive decisions,” she said.

Wheeler is also preparing for an auction next year of U.S. airwaves needed to feed the booming use of smartphones and other mobile Internet devices.

The hearing today was held by the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Communications and Technology subcommittee.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2014, 07:14:39 PM »
Google's Growing Silence on Saving Open Internet Leaves Fight to Startups
8 July 2014
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-07-08/google-waning-on-net-neturality-leaves-fight-to-startups.html

Excerpt:

Google Inc. (GOOG), once boastful that it was the leading defender of a free and open Internet, has gone into the shadows.

Since the Federal Communications Commission proposed in May to let cable and telephone companies offer special Internet fast lanes for companies willing to pay extra, lobbyists for Google haven’t visited the agency to intervene, FCC records show.

Facebook Inc. (FB), the largest social network, also has been absent.

It’s a stark change from eight years ago, when Google ran advertisements that called for treating all Web traffic equally, asked its users to contact senators on the issue and dispatched co-founder Sergey Brin to Washington to lobby lawmakers.

“They’ve definitely faded into the background, and that’s very troubling,” said Paul Sieminski, general counsel of San Francisco-based Automattic Inc., the publisher of the WordPress blogging platform.

“A lot of tech companies look to Google.”

An erosion of equality for all Web traffic has the potential to entrench large companies that have staked their turf on the Internet, while making it harder for startups to gain an audience.

For a company like Google that started in a suburban California garage in 1998 only to become the world’s largest Internet search provider with $60 billion in revenue last year, there isn’t as much incentive to fight.

“Net neutrality got them where they are,” said Timothy Wu, a Columbia University law professor in New York who supports open-Internet rules.

“There’s a danger that they, having climbed the ladder, might pull it up after them.”
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2014, 01:05:58 AM »
NETFlIX Has Joined the Net Neutrality Fight https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0XMK8nMlWU

18 July 2014, The Big Picture RT
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #18 on: October 17, 2014, 02:52:52 PM »
FCC Chief Says He Agrees With Obama on Fast Lanes for Web
17 October 2014
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-10-17/fcc-chief-says-he-agrees-with-obama-on-fast-lanes-for-web.html

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler said he agrees with U.S. President Barack Obama in opposing creation of so-called fast lanes for Web traffic as the agency rewrites open-Internet rules.

“The president and I are in agreement and have always been,” Wheeler said at a news conference today in Washington.

Wheeler sparked a furor that helped generate 3.7 million comments filed at the FCC by proposing rules earlier this year that might let Internet service providers such as Verizon Communications Inc., AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. charge for quick transport of content over their lines.

Advocacy groups and Internet companies said the proposal threatened to undermine the ideal of treating Web traffic equally, known as net neutrality.

Obama last week said he supports net neutrality and opposes letting companies pay for better service.

Obama said his appointee Wheeler, who heads an independent agency, knows his position. “I can’t just call him up and tell him exactly what to do,” Obama said.

“We expect whatever final rules to emerge to make sure that we’re not creating two or three or four tiers of Internet,” Obama said at a gathering in Los Angeles on Oct. 9 to discuss innovation.

Wheeler today said he hasn’t spoken with Obama on the issue and has kept White House staff informed of the debate at the FCC.

Wheeler repeated statements he has made at commission meetings and before Congress, saying that if paid fast lanes are judged to be anti-competitive, “it is dead on arrival.”

‘Position Unchanged’

“My position is unchanged,” Wheeler said. “The president and I agree and have always agreed on the importance of an open Internet to create, as he says, the next Google, the next Facebook.”

The debate over Internet traffic regulation was sparked when an appeals court in January voided the FCC’s previous rules, saying they exceeded limits on the agency’s authority.

In response, the agency is considering whether to rely on a part of the law that would let it impose strict rules with the possibility of price regulation, or use lighter controls to ensure Web traffic is treated equally.

Industry groups have opposed the strict rules as needlessly intrusive.

Imposing them would be “disastrous,” the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, a trade group with members including largest U.S. cable company Comcast, told the FCC.

The court left open lighter regulation as an option, the trade group said.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2014, 01:37:32 AM »
Net Neutrality May Extend Phone Regulations to Broadband
31 October 2014
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-10-31/net-neutrality-may-extend-phone-regulations-to-broadband.html

Excerpt:

Public advocacy groups said they are making progress in talks with U.S. regulators to apply utility-style rules to ensure broadband providers treat Web traffic fairly.

“The baseline of what we can expect has gone up,” Chris Riley, senior policy engineer with browser maker Mozilla, said in a blog post today.

Likely outcomes are that the Federal Communications Commission will use powers crafted last century for telephone companies to devise net neutrality rules, he said.

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in congressional testimony last month that the phone regulations, known for their legal designation Title II, are “very much on the table.”

The rules include potential rate regulations.

Top Internet service providers Comcast Corp. (CMCSA), AT&T Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. all have campaigned to keep the agency from using the regulations.

The FCC is seeking a new legal basis for rules after its earlier open-Internet regulations were voided by a court that said the agency lacked jurisdiction.

The FCC may be moving toward using Title II, the Wall Street Journal reported today without identifying who offered the information.

The FCC could use the powers to police deals between Internet service providers and companies trying to reach consumers, according to the report.

“We’re very pleased to see that the FCC chairman is moving towards a Title II framework,” Gene Kimmelman, president of the Washington-based policy group Public Knowledge, said in an e-mailed statement today.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #20 on: November 11, 2014, 11:58:25 PM »
FCC Chair ‘Under the Bus’ After Obama Call on Web Rules
11 November 2014
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-11-11/fcc-chair-under-the-bus-after-obama-call-on-web-rules.html

Excerpt:

President Barack Obama’s call for strict open-Internet rules contradicts his appointed head of the Federal Communications Commission and may complicate agency efforts to forge compromise in a polarized political atmosphere.

The result could be no rules at all, letting Internet service providers demand extra payment for speedy delivery of videos and other content.

Cable shares extended their declines on concern that strong regulation may be enacted.

Obama yesterday proposed an explicit ban on the practices and urged the FCC to claim authority over Web service in the same way it regulates phone companies.

The statements darkened prospects for FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s tentative plan to use weaker rules that could allow companies to charge extra.

“He threw Tom Wheeler under the bus,” said James Gattuso, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based policy group.

Obama’s strong stance makes it harder for Wheeler to reach a compromise among proponents of regulation, Gattuso said.

The president is taking his most forceful stance yet on the debate over treating Web traffic equally, a concept known as net neutrality.

His comments, in a video posted on the White House website, come less than a week after congressional elections that cost his party control of the Senate, giving a majority in both houses of Congress to Republicans who have long opposed open Internet rules as an unnecessary burden.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Republican FCC Member Says Obama Web Rules Would Risk Battle
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2014, 12:29:55 AM »
Republican FCC Member Says Obama Web Rules Would Risk Battle
14 November 2014
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-11-14/republican-fcc-member-says-obama-s-web-rules-would-risk-lawsuits.html

Cisco Systems Inc., Intel Corp. and a Republican Federal Communications Commission member said imposing strong open-Internet rules backed by President Barack Obama would bring lengthy litigation.

“The end result of all this is going to be years of regulatory uncertainty” and “serious damage to our nation’s broadband market,” Ajit Pai, a Republican commissioner, said today at an event hosted by the Free State Foundation, a Washington non-profit.

Executives from chip maker Intel and gear maker Cisco said in a Nov. 10 meeting with FCC staff that taking Obama’s approach “would be unlawful and unwise, relegating the industry to years of litigation and uncertainty,” according to a disclosure filing on the agency’s website today.

Obama on Nov. 10 called on the FCC to ensure Internet service providers treat Web traffic fairly, and said the agency should use stricter rules than those proposed by Chairman Tom Wheeler.

The independent agency, which has a three-member Democratic majority including Wheeler, is considering what to do. Deliberations will stretch into next year, said Kim Hart, an FCC spokeswoman.

The president has “an important voice” and his views will be fully considered, Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, the FCC’s other Republican, said at the Free State event.

‘Long Process’

The FCC is independent and doesn’t make decisions based on the views “of any particular elected official,” O’Rielly said. He and Pai declined to answer questions from reporters.

AT&T Inc. (T) Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson in a televised interview today said arguments could stretch for years.

“For the president to accomplish what he wants is going to be a very long process by the FCC,” Stephenson said in an interview on Fox Business Network.

“Whether it’s AT&T or not, somebody will litigate that outcome. So we are two, three years down the road before you get any clarity.”

On Nov. 12, Stephenson told a group of investors that AT&T will delay installing Internet infrastructure in 100 cities until rules to keep the Internet open are clarified.

Congressional Republicans say they oppose Obama’s plan as unnecessary regulation.

Supporters say strong rules are needed to keep Internet service providers led by AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc. (VZ) and Comcast Corp. (CMCSA) from blocking or slowing Web traffic.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,353
    • The Great Deception
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #22 on: January 13, 2015, 09:50:28 AM »
Do you remember? Cybersecurity Chief Beckstrom Resigned calling it Bad Policy to let the NSA play major cybersecurity role (should be common sense actually). Yet that's exactly what is happening, if Jay and boyz get their way. Reintroducing this bill is one of Rockefellers lasts acts in the Senate (thankfully, he finally resigned this month. However, he is now at CFR running Cybersecurity philosophy and I'm sure still manipulating Thune and others in the Senate to do what he wants). Now the stars are aligning, with all the new attacks in France and hackings in the USA, utterings from Obama with his new cyber meeting, to con Congress into passing this abomination. CONGRESS, DON'T YOU DARE CAVE TO THIS MANIPULATION:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=6464

http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showtopic=2668&st=0&#last



Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,353
    • The Great Deception
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2015, 03:13:00 PM »
http://www.infowars.com/no-the-islamic-state-did-not-hack-centcom/

Quote
UPDATE (Jan 13 2:00am): See how well the “hack” works as an argument for Obama’s new law which will indemnify private companies which hand over YOUR private data to the government.

A screenshot from the current Washington Post homepage: (See article)

New Congress version: H.R.234 - To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/234
https://www.congress.gov/member/c-a-ruppersberger/1728
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,353
    • The Great Deception
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #25 on: January 14, 2015, 07:06:52 AM »
EVERY NEW CONGRESS THEY REINTRODUCE BILLS. THIS IS NOW THE 114TH CONGRESS: The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which encourages Internet companies to share your private data with the government under the guise of “cybersecurity,” was reintroduced to Congress by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.)
http://www.infowars.com/lawmaker-reintroduces-cispa-cybersecurity-bill/
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/rockefeller-lead-senate-player-on-cyber-seeks-to-win-over-business-20130215

http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/226113-key-house-dem-plots-cyber-strategy

https://troyjurimas.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/who-is-the-house-and-senate-committees-on-intelligence-really-looking-out-for/
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline iROBOTi

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 157
  • THE REPLICANT RETURNS
Obama - Net Neutrality
« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2015, 06:45:08 PM »

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,353
    • The Great Deception
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #27 on: January 23, 2015, 01:15:26 PM »
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,293
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2015, 07:34:13 PM »
It's all about control and attempt to impose global digital feudalism.

It's a proven fact that freely downloading and uploading audio, video, etc actually INCREASES sales because people find out about stuff they otherwise never would have.  Also, people support artists that they like by default.  If you suck, guess what?  You don;t deserve to make a living.  You don;t get to decide if you're successful by forcing people to buy your CRAP.  The old Commodore 64 computer from the 80's was the most popular gaming computer of all time EXPRESSLY BECAUSE C64 GAMES WERE THE MOST "PIRATEABLE", AND FOR NO OTHER REASON.  Systems that implement British EMpire fascist "DRM" is MASSIVELY UNPOPULAR.  Now you have DRM infecting things that have nothing to do with software or games on a PC, you have DRM in things like THE KEURIG 2.0 COFFEE MAKER.  THat coffee machine is singlehandedly the most UNPOPULAR PIECE OF SHIT (look at the 1 star amazon reviews of it) in existence specifically because of it's "DRM" cockblocking that disallows COMPETITIVE, (READ:  CHEAPER) aftermarket K-Cups. 

They also want more DRM in automobiles,SO YOU CAN'T SAVE HUGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY BY AVOIDI9NG THE DEALER AND USING A LOCAL TRUSTED NON-BULLSHIT MECHANIC, TRYING TO GUARANTEE TO THE FASCIST CORPORATE WHORE DEALER THAT THEY GET TO FINANCIALLY RAPE YOU.  GUESS WHAT, PEOPLE BOYCOTT CARS LIKE THAT.  OH AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON THE NWO PULLS AUSTERITY SCHEMES LIKE "CASH FOR CLUNKERS" (MORE LIKE "CASH FOR CARS THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO REALIZE THAT THEY'RE BETTER THAN NEW CARS") IN AN ATTEMPT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR PEOPLE TO BOYCOTT THEM.

They want TOTAL, TOTAL, TOTAL control.  Remember the old TV show Max Headroom from the 1980's?  It depicted the real level of psychopathy of the elite--where you were forced to have your TV plugged in so government propaganda/commercials would be unavoidable to you.  If you unoplugged your TV it was a death sentence and your home would be swat teamed and you;d be shot dead for daring to think you could avoid government brainwashing and corporate whore commercials being shoved down your throat.

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #29 on: January 27, 2015, 03:35:34 PM »
AT&T, Verizon Fight to Exclude Mobile From Obama’s Web Rules
27 January 2015
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2015-01-27/at-t-verizon-fight-to-exclude-mobile-from-obama-s-web-rules.html
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #30 on: January 27, 2015, 03:36:59 PM »
Cable Pushes to Exclude Netflix Deals in FCC Net Neutrality Rule
23 January 2015
, by Todd Shields (Bloomberg)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2015-01-23/cable-pushes-to-exclude-netflix-deals-in-fcc-net-neutrality-rule.html
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Letsbereal

  • Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #31 on: February 03, 2015, 03:30:32 AM »
FCC to propose strong ‘net neutrality’ rules
2 February 2015
, by Gautham Nagesh (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fcc-to-propose-strong-net-neutrality-rules-2015-02-02-201034439

The Federal Communications Commission is about to fundamentally change the way it oversees high-speed Internet service, proposing to regulate it as a public utility.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline decemberfellow

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,041
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2015, 06:09:03 PM »
Must be we are winning the info war.
Rev21:4
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


Who am I
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7Fk6dt_uHo

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,475
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2015, 06:33:27 PM »
Must be we are winning the info war.
  Hi D... I agree with ya..!  Many folks are well aware, kinda like riding the crest of wave and waiting for the fall.  We still have a good number of die hard pseudo pats as we have seen wih the sniper flik.
What is not being exposed publically many folks know whats going on, they just plain don't know what the hell to do..  Still  Stuck in the GOP VS DEMS for answers. Defalted footballs-OMG.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2015, 03:53:04 PM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/why-obama-wants-to-regulate-the-internet.html


Why Obama Wants to Regulate the Internet
 
Kit Daniels
Prison Planet.com
February 12, 2015
The mainstream media’s declining influence is motivating the federal government to regulate the Internet because controlling information is the most powerful way to control the public.
Why Obama Wants to Regulate the Internet 010514maskofobama
The U.S. mainstream media, which is predominantly owned by six corporations with close ties to the government, is used by the establishment to control public opinion, but for the past several years it has lost influence as the public seeks alternative sources of information.
“Just a handful of global news corporations can, in one day, make billions of people around the world simultaneously aware of something that was completely unknown the day before,” Joseph Plummer wrote in Tragedy & Hope 101. “With this kind of power, the Network [the establishment] can choose to spread any lie, or withhold any truth, that it chooses.”
“At the end of the day, if people aren’t looking beyond the Network’s instruments for their information, they cannot expect to know what the Network doesn’t want them to know.”
And that’s why the government is targeting Internet-based independent press: to reduce the mainstream media’s competition.

The establishment media’s decline has been nothing short of legendary.
From Nov. 2012 to Nov. 2013, for example, the ratings for CNN and MSNBC in the 25 to 54-year-old demographic dropped 59% and 52% respectively, and in 2013 the combined median prime-time viewership of CNN, Fox News and MSNBC dropped 11%.
“Mainstream media executives appear to be optimistic they can reverse these declines at some point, but they simply don’t realize there has been a fundamental paradigm shift when it comes to the news media in the United States,” social commentator Michael Snyder wrote. “The general population has lost a tremendous amount of faith in the mainstream media.”
“They are increasingly becoming aware it is deeply controlled by the establishment.”
This has raised concerns among establishment insiders, who gain power through the ignorance, rather than the consent, of those governed, and recently the federal government announced its plan to explore ways to regulate free speech on the Internet.
“A key Democrat on the Federal Election Commission called for burdensome new rules on Internet-based campaigning, prompting the Republican chairman to warn that Democrats want to regulate online political sites and even news media like the Drudge Report,” Paul Bedard of the Washington Examiner reported. “Democratic FEC Vice Chair Ann M. Ravel announced plans to begin the process to win regulations on Internet-based campaigns and videos, currently free from most of the FEC’s rules.”
Simply put, this is a power grab designed to destroy individual rights in favor of subordination to the ruling elite, which is exactly what the Meiji oligarchy did in 1889 when it returned to power in Japan.
“Like all ruling classes, the Meiji maintained control by indoctrinating the masses in an ideology that served the oligarchs’ interests,” Joseph Plummer also wrote. “Specifically, they propagated the Shinto ideology, which called for subordination to the emperor.”
“The Japanese people accepted this Shinto ideology, and as a result the Meiji oligarchy was able to ruthlessly exploit them in the emperor’s name.”
And if the American people accept this attack on free speech, they too will be ruthlessly exploited in Obama’s name.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #35 on: February 13, 2015, 08:28:56 PM »
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/13/fcc-commish-obama-taking-unprecedented-direct-control-over-internet-changes/

FCC COMMISH: OBAMA TAKING UNPRECEDENTED DIRECT CONTROL OVER INTERNET CHANGES

Friday on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said President Barack Obama is about to succeed in his attempt to take “alarmingly unprecedented direct involvement” into the FCC’s plan to regulate the internet, which he explained will mean “billions of dollars in new taxes,” slower broadband speeds and “less competition.”

Discussing the plan that the FCC has refused to let the public see Pai said, “Unfortunately it looks like the cake has been baked. President Obama gave his direction to the FCC in back in early November and lo and behold, the FCC majority has put together President Obama’s plan for Internet regulation. And it looks to be posed pass it on a 3-to-2 vote.”

When asked if the president’s move was an “alarmingly unprecedented direct involvement,” into FCC, Pai agreed, explaining the FCC has been an independent agency since 1934, he said, “When you have a politician shortly after the midterm election deciding to direct the agency to do  x, y, z  and telling us he wants us to use a particular legal theory to do it you’re in uncharted territory, at least in my experience. I think compromising the  independence of the agency is bad enough, but especially when it involves the government control the Internet. That is just a dangerous road for us to travel on.”
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,102
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #36 on: February 13, 2015, 09:08:58 PM »
Obama's on the offensive again. Same old story.

The question is: Since Republicans now control both houses of Congress, where's the counteroffensive?

The "John Boehner" excuse doesn't hold up, because there's nothing he can do to stop anyone in the Republican-controlled Senate from sponsoring and introducing a bill to prohibit Chinese-style censorship of the Internet.

So what's the excuse this time?

Are they too busy with more important matters, like renewing their efforts (in the name of "liberty," of course) to cut the social safety net in the midst of a banker-engineered depression?

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/latest-national-news/59159-amid-lopsided-recovery-republicans-plan-cuts-to-food-stamp-program.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/yes-republicans-want-big-time-cuts-in-social-security
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geniocrat

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,874
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #37 on: February 13, 2015, 09:29:07 PM »
.....and nothing will come from it......


 8)

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Billionaire Mark Cuban Says Net Neutrality Will ‘f**k Everything Up’
« Reply #38 on: February 19, 2015, 12:50:12 PM »
http://recode.net/2015/02/18/billionaire-mark-cuban-says-net-neutrality-will-f**k-everything-up/

Billionaire Mark Cuban Says Net Neutrality Will ‘f**k Everything Up’ (Video)


Billionaire investor and ABC “Shark Tank” star Mark Cuban unloaded on the Federal Communications Commission’s plan to fundamentally change how it oversees the open Internet.

“That will f**k everything up,” said the voluble Cuban in remarks Wednesday at the Code/Media conference at The Ritz-Carlton, Laguna Niguel, Calif.

In early February, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler proposed tough new rules for Internet lines that would prohibit wired and wireless broadband providers from collecting payment to cut to the front of the line, or blocking and throttling lawful content and services.

Cuban said this bid to significantly expand the agency’s authority to regulate broadband providers is nothing more than an attack on giant media companies like Comcast*.

“Net neutrality is just a demonization of big companies,” Cuban said.

Cuban, who parlayed his windfall from the 1999 sale of Broadcast.com to Yahoo into an array of ventures that include the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks, AXS TV and the Landmark Theatres chain, said there is no evidence (beyond an isolated 2008 case) that Internet providers have throttled access to certain websites.

The executive dismissed Netflix’s claims that subscribers endured slower speeds until the company paid Comcast for direct access to the Internet provider’s broadband network. Comcast claimed that Netflix had used an inferior middleman to deliver video to Comcast’s network.

“It’s a battle between two fairly large companies,” Cuban said. “[They] worked it out, just like happens in business every day.”

Cuban said he does not want a group of political appointees at the FCC regulating the Internet.

“Having them overseeing the Internet scares the shit out of me,” Cuban said.


However, he said he would have no objection to Congress passing a law specifying that Internet providers can’t discriminate against or block legal websites.

* Comcast owns NBCUniversal, which is a minority investor in Revere Digital, Re/code’s parent company.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Re: THE END OF INTERNET: US Proposes Pay-for-priority Internet Standards
« Reply #39 on: February 23, 2015, 06:15:20 PM »
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/23/republican-fcc-commissioners-ask-wheeler-to-delay-net-neutrality-vote-release-proposal/

  I am convinced that one of Obama's main missions in the next 2 years IS TO RUIN THE INTERNET AS WE KNOW IT.  He is mean-spirited and bitter and he is going to take it out on us that have the pitchforks (the 99%).

  Republican FCC Commissioners Ask Wheeler To Delay Net Neutrality Vote, Release Proposal

I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.