FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule

Author Topic: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule  (Read 20531 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline liko

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,031
  • Freedom or Nothing!
FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
« on: November 04, 2008, 11:23:16 AM »


Aust ISP CEO's say Net Neutrality is an American problem,it funny how they don't deal with any other real aspects of NET NEUT.

http://www.zdnet.com.au/video/play/22461267

Offline remixx

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • Alternative News Sources
This is why net neutrality is important (pic)
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2008, 11:47:05 PM »




Alex Jones Show Mp3s
http://info.t1production.com

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: This is why net neutrality is important (pic)
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2008, 11:58:22 PM »
Oh, it's coming.  Only a matter of time.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

nofakenews

  • Guest
FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
« Reply #3 on: December 23, 2008, 04:56:44 AM »
Broadband development should not be stifled by federal regulation that intends to make networks more "neutral," the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is arguing through two papers released Monday.

The papers, the first in a series of five that will examine the impact of broadband on certain user groups and for certain purposes, argue that the federal government's current loose regulatory structure has enabled broadband to become a "life-altering tool" both for the general population and for senior citizens specifically.

"An estimated $60 billion has been invested in broadband infrastructure by the communications industry this year," William Kovacs, the U.S. Chamber's vice president for environment, technology, and regulatory affairs, said in a statement. "Given these turbulent economic times, federal policy must continue to support this high-level of investment. This will spur job growth, innovation, and consumer choice."

The lack of Net neutrality laws or other federally-mandated regulations has spurred telecommunications companies to heavily invest in broadband infrastructure, according to the first paper, "Network Effects: An Introduction to Broadband Technology & Regulation." (http://www.uschamber.com/assets/env/introbroadband.pdf)

"Moving away from a pro-investment model would halt this organic progress and would have a devastating effect on the U.S. economy, investment, and innovation," it says. "Moreover, policies aimed at management practices are unnecessary and would serve only to chill innovation at the network level and at its edges, resulting in net consumer welfare losses."

Network owners need to be able to manage content flow in order to prioritize important data like 911 voice over IP calls, according to the paper, authored by Charles Davidson and Michael Santorelli of the Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute at New York Law School. The need to manage networks will only grow as the amount of services offered online grows, it says.

"A variety of proposals have been put forward to regulate the broadband sector under the guise of making the physical infrastructure more 'neutral' to the data flowing over it," the paper says, but such regulations would lessen incentives for investment in broadband and slow the development of content and applications.

The paper recommends legislators focus on targeting broadband funding in regions where it is most needed, reforming the Universal Service Fund, and embracing public-private partnerships to promote broadband deployment.

The second paper, "The Impact of Broadband on Senior Citizens," (http://www.uschamber.com/assets/env/broadbandseniors.pdf) recommends similar support for broadband deployment as well as educating seniors on the usefulness of broadband and expanding their options for getting online. If obstacles for adoption are removed, the paper says, broadband could transform senior life and senior care, just as the senior population is set to expand significantly.

The chamber will later release papers examining the impact of broadband deployment on telemedicine, education, and people with disabilities.


http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10128169-38.html


Here is the obama plan right in your face and no Net neutrality........ Kiss your connection bye bye.


On side note my power went out and I'm running on my aps backup strange timing and not related to this news...

nofakenews

  • Guest
Re: Chamber backs broadband deployment--without Net neutrality laws
« Reply #4 on: December 23, 2008, 11:41:57 AM »
Wow I guess some have no idea why this is so important and a must read. The plan to take down the internet is right here!

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,659
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2009, 03:53:56 PM »
FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2009/09/fcc_to_introduce_rules_that_pr.html?hpid=topnews

Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, plans to propose a new so-called net neutrality rule Monday that could prevent wireless companies from blocking Internet applications, according to a source at the agency.

Genachowski will discuss the rules Monday during a keynote speech at The Brookings Institute. He isn't expected to drill into many details but the proposal will be for an additional guideline that network operators can't discriminate, or act as gatekeepers, of Web content. That proposal will be reviewed across platforms, including wireless networks which have come under scrutiny for allegations of blocking competing voice services offered by carriers.

The source spoke on the condition of anonymity because details of the new regulations haven't been officially announced.

It would be the first bold move by Genachowski, who served as President Obama's technology advisor during the campaign and transition. The rule could upset wireless, telecom and cable operators who have fought against regulations that would give them less control over traffic that runs on their networks. They argue that they need to maintain flexibility to manage traffic to ensure some applications don't take up too much bandwidth and make Web access slower for some users.

But the rule, which is expected to come in the form of a fifth principal to existing guidelines for network operators, would clearly spell out that carriers can't discriminate what applications run on their networks, according to a source. The agency is expected to review what traffic management is reasonable and what practices are discriminatory. The principals are guidelines set forth by the agency, which some public interest groups have sought to codify so that they would clearly be enforceable by the agency.

The debate encompasses a wide variety of technology companies. Some -- like Google -- create applications for the Web and want customers to have easy access to their wares. Network owners, however, find themselves increasing on the defensive; their traditional business of providing phone and television has been challenged by upstarts providing much of the same content on the Web.

Such network operators have drawn scrutiny of late.

Google revealed Friday in letters to the FCC that Apple rejected its voice service and a mapping service on the popular iPhone and Internet voice service Skype has fought for rules that would prevent companies like AT&T from keeping its service off its wireless 3G network. The FCC asked AT&T, Apple and Google to respond to questions about allegations that Google Voice was blocked. Apple denies it rejected the application, saying it is still evaluating whether to permit it on the iPhone. And it is unclear whether the FCC can regulate the manufacturers of wireless phones, which some argue are part of wireless networks and others say are separate from networks and not under the jurisdiction of the agency.

Consumer interest groups have pushed for new rules and key lawmakers Thursday ratcheted up the debate when Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said he would co-author a net neutrality bill with Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Anna Eschoo (D-Calif.).

"If the commission moves forward on network neutrality, it will achieve the president's signature tech policy agenda item," said Ben Scott, director of policy at public interest group Free Press. "And it's a firm move to protect the open Internet for consumers and producers of content in a competitive marketplace of speech and commerce."
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline DCUBED

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,882
  • Sieg Heil!
FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2009, 09:38:05 AM »
http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090919/ap_on_hi_te/us_internet_rules

Reports: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules

WASHINGTON -

The head of the FCC plans to propose new rules that would prohibit Internet service providers from interfering with the free flow of information and certain applications over their networks, according to reports published Saturday.

The Washington Post and New York Times said the Federal Communications Commission chairman, Julius Genachowski, will announced the proposed rules in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

The proposals would uphold a pledge Barack Obama made during the presidential campaign to support Internet neutrality and would bar companies like Verizon, Comcast or ATT&T, from slowing or blocking certain services or content flowing through their vast networks.

The rules would apply to all ISPs, including wireless service providers.

Without strict rules ensuring Net neutrality, consumer watchdogs fear the communications companies could interfere with the transmission of content, such as TV shows delivered over the Internet, that compete with services the ISPs offer, like cable television.

Internet providers have opposed regulations that would inhibit the way they control their networks, arguing they need to be able to make sure applications that consume a lot of bandwidth don't slow Internet access to other users.

"We are concerned about the unintended consequences that Net neutrality regulation would have on investments from the very industry that's helping to drive the U.S. economy," Chris Guttman-McCabe, a vice president at CTIA, a wireless trade group, told the Post.
“Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”  - Arthur Conan Doyle

"The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." J. Edgar Hoover

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2009, 04:23:15 PM »
This is bad. Doesn't surprise me. The FCC is basically the bullying wing of the corporate media. It makes me wonder if this will give the FCC the authority to apply broadcasting regulations to the internet. I mean can you imagine Infowars.com and Prisonplanet.com being fined $250,000 for exposing the fact that Rahm Emanuel is the son of a Zionist terrorist?

luckee1

  • Guest
Re: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2009, 04:43:51 PM »
Look what I found while googling Guttman-McCabe!  (Off topic I know but it bothers me that all those supposed cell calls during 9-11 happened yet cell phone companies are saying no.)

Jet passengers may not get to chat on cellphones after all

Updated 3/22/2007 3:16 PM  By Paul Davidson, USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/telecom/2007-03-21-fcc-usat_N.htm?csp=34

The once-highflying idea of letting passengers use their wireless phones on airplanes is about to be grounded.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is recommending the FCC drop its tentative plan to lift its ban on in-flight cellphone use, three agency officials say. They asked to remain anonymous because the proposal is still being considered.

Most of the agency's five commissioners support the recommendation, the FCC officials say.

The idea, proposed with much fanfare in late 2004, has been throttled by concerns about interference with cellphone calls on the ground and a lack of interest by both wireless providers and the public. The Federal Aviation Administration also is reviewing whether in-flight cellphone use would disrupt airplane navigation gear.

The FCC has long worried that wireless calls at 35,000 feet would clog hundreds of on-ground towers at once. That hurdle was expected to be remedied by a plan to send passengers' cellphone signals to a small airplane antenna, known as a pico cell. The antenna would then relay calls to earthbound towers over spectrum — earmarked just for air-to-ground use — won by AirCell in an FCC auction last year.

But tests conducted last year by CTIA, a wireless association, showed that in-flight calls still cause interference, especially if the pico cell couldn't recognize the passenger's cellphone signal, says CTIA Vice President Chris Guttman-McCabe.

AirCell CEO Jack Blumstein says the interference issues can be fixed. The larger obstacle, he says, is a lack of enthusiasm by both consumers and wireless industry players for in-flight cellphone use. In a USA TODAY survey in 2005, 68% of respondents favored keeping the ban. Consumers have voiced concerns that cellphone chatting by air-travel neighbors would be disruptive.

Also, Cingular and Verizon also have told the FCC they don't what to share their frequencies in the skies with competitors. Such sharing of constantly-shifting frequencies likely would be necessary for cellphones to work, AirCell has said.

Major wireless providers and AirCell are more interested in providing less-obtrusive broadband services, Blumenstein says. A $10-per-trip AirCell service slated to roll out by early 2008 would let passengers use Wi-Fi-equipped laptops to e-mail, surf the Web and access corporate networks. JetBlue, meanwhile, has said it may introduce an in-flight e-mail and text-messaging service later this year.

"We've always been interested in broadband Internet and e-mail, not voice," Blumenstein says.

Blumenstein says interest in in-flight cellphone use could be revived if a European rollout of the service this year is successful. And Guttman-McCabe says wireless carriers would be supportive if interference glitches are resolved.

Communications Daily first reported Wednesday the FCC's proposal to keep the cellphone ban in place.

Contributing: Roger Yu

Offline Harconen

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,761
U.S. moves to adopt 6 net neutrality rules
« Reply #9 on: September 24, 2009, 10:00:35 PM »
U.S. moves to adopt 6 net neutrality rules


Statism Watch
Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:26 EDT
http://statismwatch.ca/2009/09/21/us-moves-to-adopt-6-net-neutrality-rules/

While this appears to be reason for open net advocates to rejoice. they should pause to reflect on the fact that this also represents an increased federalization of the net. The original intent behind net neutrality was that it was a voluntary principle underlying the very structure of the Internet. Of course you don't arbitrarily impede certain forms of traffic. Of course you don't restrict the kinds of information accessible on open networks. Everyone understood this, it was in the DNA of the endeavour itself. Now regulation is being passed that amounts to the same thing. So it's kind of sad in a way, since it does strike at the right to self determination of network owners that ought to know better. And given this administration's other major network policies - the demand for increased surveillance of these networks - we shouldn't be too surprised if some form of deeper coherence between these laws, like the verbiage around 'legal use' and 'subject to the needs of law enforcement'. What will constitute such use when these Orwellian new initiatives are put in place? And what constitutes 'reasonable network management'? Now the state decides.

(As an aside, how is this going to affect Apple's vetting of iPhone applications?)

CBC News http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/09/21/fcc-formal-net-neutrality-rules-crtc.html?ref=rss

September 21, 2009

The United States is moving toward enshrining a free and open internet with six proposed rules designed to prevent telecommunications companies from interfering with how people use their connections.

The rules are needed because American internet providers have interfered with internet traffic on a number of occasions and they must be prevented from doing so in the future, said Federal Communications Commission chairman Julius Genachowski in a speech at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

"The rise of serious challenges to the free and open internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see the internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas," he said.

"The internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity. It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America. It is vital that we safeguard the free and open internet."

The FCC, the United States' counterpart to the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, has since 2005 applied four so-called net neutrality principles in its decision-making. The regulator is now seeking to codify those principles, along with two new ones, as law.

Genachowski, who was appointed to his job this summer by President Barack Obama - a fellow net neutrality supporter - said the FCC will launch its rule-making process in October and will seek input from the public and interested companies. The rules will have to be approved by the FCC's five commissioners, three of which are Democrats and supporters of net neutrality.

Happy to hear news

Net neutrality supporters cheered the news. Vint Cerf, the Google vice-president who helped created the internet in the 1970s and 1980s, said the rules are needed because internet providers have recently started blocking applications - such as peer-to-peer software - and favouring certain websites.

"If consumers had a wide choice of broadband service providers, preserving an open internet might not be such a critical issue. Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans have few [if any] choices in selecting a provider," he wrote on Google's public policy blog.

"As a result, these providers are in a position to influence whether and how consumers and producers can use the on-ramps to the internet - and we've already seen several examples of discriminatory actions or threats that impair openness."

One of the instances Cerf was referring to was cable provider Comcast's blocking of peer-to-peer traffic last year. The company was sanctioned by the FCC and ordered to stop the practice, but Comcast filed a lawsuit against the regulator saying it didn't have the authority to make such demands. The lawsuit is still pending.

The move is a major blow to phone and cable companies, who have argued that they need to manage their networks as they see fit. They have also said that further regulation of their networks will discourage investment in them. Wireless companies will be particularly opposed as so far, they have been able to call the shots on what applications and services consumers can use on their devices.

"We believe that this kind of regulation is unnecessary in the competitive wireless space as it would prevent carriers from managing their networks - such as curtailing viruses and other harmful content [Ed. Note: Bwa-hahaha] - to the benefit of their consumers," Chris Guttman-McCabe, vice-president of regulatory affairs for the Cellular Telephone Industries Association, told the Wall Street Journal.

In Canada the CRTC is looking at whether net neutrality rules are needed, and if so, what they should be. The regulator held a series of hearings this summer and is expected to announce its findings this year.

Canadian internet providers have said net neutrality rules are not needed because the Telecommunications Act already prohibits preferential treatment of traffic. Neutrality supporters, however, have argued that cases such as the slowing of peer-to-peer traffic by several internet providers - which the CRTC allowed after hearings last year - show that the rules aren't strong enough.

The principles

Two new principles will join those original four and be formalized as official rules that will apply to both wired and wireless networks:

    * Consumers are entitled to access whatever lawful internet content they want.
    * Consumers are entitled to run whatever applications and services they want, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
    * Consumers can connect to networks whatever legal devices they want, so long as they do not harm them.
    * Consumers are entitled to competition between networks, applications, services and content providers.
    * Service providers are not allowed to discriminate between applications, services and content outside of reasonable network management.
    * Service providers must be transparent about the network management practices they use.
Resist. Rebel. Cry out to all peoples and nations from the sky as the lightening flashes from the east to the west and judge the living and the dead.Or choose submission and slavery.

The light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.  (John 1:5)

Offline Freeski

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,706
Re: U.S. moves to adopt 6 net neutrality rules
« Reply #10 on: October 21, 2009, 03:29:56 PM »
Looks like the Canadian feds gave the ISPs the okay to throttle, so slong as they warn us first. U.S. moves coming tomorrow? (This is the exact same tactic used to get around unconstitutional searches - namely roadblocks/checkpoints - all you have to do is tell them you plan to screw them over in advance.
------------------------

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

CRTC allows Internet throttling as 'last resort'Jamie Sturgeon,  Financial Post 
Wayne Cuddington/Canwest News Service.
http://www.financialpost.com/news-sectors/story.html?id=2128207

The national regulator for the Internet industry ruled Wednesday that Canada's biggest service providers must notify customers, both big and small, when they attempt to manage the flow of online traffic.


The regulator also said big ISPs like Bell Canada, Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications may only "throttle" -- the act of limiting the amount of broadband certain customers can access -- "as a last resort."


The new "framework" will "foster an environment where ISPs, application providers and users have the utmost freedom to innovate," said Konrad von Finckenstein, chairman of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), in a statement.


In the ruling, which comes in the wake of extensive hearings this past summer, the CRTC said large ISPs must give retail customers 30 days' notice before any new "traffic management practice" takes effect.


Wholesale users, which may include smaller client Internet service providers that effectively rent network space from the big ISPs, must be given 60 days' notice, the CRTC said. Those client ISPs have charged that the larger network carriers give their own service preferential treatment.


The policy report also said providers must notify customers how any new traffic-management technique will impact their service.


The CRTC said large network owners should use economic measures before resorting to technical means, or throttling, to control the growing flow of traffic online. "They match consumer usage with willingness to pay, thus putting users in control and allowing market forces to work," the report said.


The commission acknowledged that "ISPs may need other measures to manage the traffic on their networks at certain times," yet cautioned "technical means to manage traffic, such as traffic shaping, should only be employed as a last resort."


As in other countries, the amount of data flowing across the networks of Canada's biggest Internet providers has soared in recent years.


The growth has led to concerns that unchecked usage among increasingly heavier users involved in downloading information and content such as movies and music is outstripping network capacity.


The commission also recommended on Wednesday that service providers invest in increasing the capacity of their networks "as much as possible."


The CRTC's report comes a day before its equivalent body in the U.S. is scheduled to vote on similar new rules that will govern traffic management online in that country.


The Federal Communications Commission will vote Thursday whether to allow carriers like Verizon and Comcast to shape the flow of traffic on their networks.


Carriers there say heavy users should pay more. Opponents, ranging from consumer groups to Internet search giant Google Inc., say unlimited usage fosters innovation and competition.
"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.

Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
Verizon CEO slams Net neutrality //Carriers Eye Pay-As-You-Go Internet
« Reply #11 on: October 22, 2009, 04:39:28 AM »
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10379932-266.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

CHICAGO--The day before the FCC is expected to start the ball rolling on new regulations to keep the Internet open, Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg painted a doomsday picture of what could happen in the industry if stricter rules are imposed.

During his keynote address Wednesday at the Supercomm 2009 trade show here, Seidenberg said that Verizon is very troubled by the regulations being proposed by the Federal Communications Commission. He argued that imposing stricter regulations would pit network providers against application providers in a way that would ruin the Internet's potential for economic growth and societal change.

"Proponents (of Net neutrality) have a worldview that network providers and application providers, like Google, occupy different parts of the Internet: dumb pipes versus smart apps," he said. "This is a mistake pure and simple. It's an analog idea for a digital world. It completely understates the need for sound practices and ignores the benefits of smart networks."

Last month, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said he plans to make the FCC's four open Internet principles official regulation and also proposed adding two more rules. The five-person commission is controlled by Democrats, who all favor Net neutrality regulation, which means new rules almost certainly will be adopted.

On Thursday, the FCC will begin the process of developing these official rules.

Verizon and other large broadband providers, such as AT&T and Comcast, have opposed Net neutrality rules. These companies argue that imposing new regulation will stifle innovation and hamper investment in the network.

Seidenberg pointed to telemedicine as an example of how strict rules could hamper innovation. He said that companies like Verizon need to be able to prioritize packets that are transmitting medical monitoring data--over such items like e-mail or spam--to make sure they get through the network quickly. But if rules are in place that prohibit carriers from prioritizing traffic, he said, then such medical services cannot be offered.

Carriers Eye Pay-As-You-Go Internet

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703816204574483674228258540.html?mod=wsj_share_digg

Recent efforts to introduce usage-based, or metered, broadband services have met stiff resistance from consumers. But a new push by the federal government to adopt rules that would force Internet providers to treat all Web traffic equally, no matter how much bandwidth they take up, could give ammunition to the broadband providers that want to change how they charge for Web access, Internet experts and consumer advocates say.

"This could come down to carriers saying, 'If you don't allow us to manage our networks the way we see fit, then we will just have to cap everything,' " says Phillip Dampier, a consumer advocate focusing on technology issues in Rochester, N.Y. "They'll make it an either/or thing: give them more control over their network or expect metered broadband."

Mr. Dampier was among those who forced Time Warner Cable to shelve a metered Internet pilot program in several cities last year. The company, which had argued the plan would be a fairer way to charge for access, acknowledged it was a "debacle." It won't say if it plans to revive the trials.

Some broadband providers argue that a pay-as-you-go Internet is unavoidable. "A flat-rate, infinitely expandable service is unachievable,"Dick Lynch, chief technology officer of Verizon Communications Inc., said at a recent industry conference, referring to the industry in general. "We're going to have to consider pricing structures that allow us to sell packages of bytes."

Advocates say unlimited monthly Internet service has been critical to the Internet's growth and the formation of online start-ups. Paying by the amount of Internet traffic used could damp usage and the sort of tinkering that can lead to breakthroughs, they warn.

Carriers believe it is only fair that heavy users pay more, especially since online file-sharing software, such as BitTorrent, takes up so much bandwidth.

Last year, the Federal Communications Commission sanctioned Comcast Corp. for violating so-called network neutrality principles. Comcast, which is appealing the decision, had hindered the use of file-sharing software without informing customers. It argued it needed to control such usage to keep traffic flowing properly.

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
Re: Verizon CEO slams Net neutrality //Carriers Eye Pay-As-You-Go Internet
« Reply #12 on: October 22, 2009, 05:02:33 AM »
Net neutrality is essential for the internet to remain free and open. Verizon just wants to make more money by charging large people to have a fast website

Offline TheHouseMan

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,837
If net neutrality disappears...
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2009, 07:51:35 AM »
Expect your Internet to look like this if John McCain's treasonous bill passes:


Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,839
Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2010, 05:19:41 PM »
Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/fcc-comments


Stop a Washington takeover of the Internet
The Federal Communications Commission is moving ahead with proposed "Open Internet" rules, which would give federal regulators vast new powers, and ultimately lead to government control of the Internet.

Deadline is Thursday January 14th.
Please get all your comments in by 8PM Eastern on January 14th, when we will file them in the official docket.

In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet. GN Docket No, 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52.
You can read the complete proposal here: (http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09-93A1.pdf).

In a nutshell, “Open Internet” is the left’s latest marketing language for what they used to call “net neutrality.” It is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the Free Press founder who explained his goal to SocialistProject.ca: “What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility.”

“Open Internet” or “net neutrality” sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – until you realize that modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router. Making sure services like VoIP, video conferencing, and telemedicine (not to mention the next great thing that hasn't been invented yet) get priority may be necessary to make the Internet work, but the government is considering regulations that will make it illegal to prioritize traffic.

Heavy-handed regulation could destroy private investment in the Internet, in turn forcing taxpayers to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to keep the Internet functioning, bringing government ownership and control.

http://americansforprosperity.org/internet-comment

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,839
Re: Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
« Reply #15 on: January 13, 2010, 05:38:43 PM »
The dead line well be here soon, so come on! speak out agianst it.

Offline Brocke

  • Eleutherophiliac & Drapetomaniac
  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,790
  • I am not a number, I am a free man!
    • Vimeo page
Re: Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
« Reply #16 on: January 13, 2010, 05:47:19 PM »

    
ISP-level filtering NOW in Australia!!!
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=29926.0

This is the response I received from the Government for signing an online petition against manditory ISP-Level filtering here in Australia.

Look out America, your next. Don't let them do this to you!!!



That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.
~Aldous Huxley

He who has a why to live can bear almost any how. - ~Friedrich Nietzsche

Offline menace

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,839
Re: Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
« Reply #17 on: January 14, 2010, 08:14:57 PM »
The deadline is tonight.

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Coming from Soros, this needs a closer look.

Any regulation of an unregulated industry is likely to be a trojan horse.

Telecoms have no secret plan, they are a part of the hijacked government. they are immune from hundreds of millions of 4th amendment violations. playing them as the bad guy against the savior FCC seems like a set up. Especially when the FCC is the one who in the past 20 years consolidated over 500 news outlets to 4.



Telecoms’ Secret Plan To Attack Net Neutrality: Target Video Gamers And Stoke Fear Of Chinese Censorship
http://thinkprogress.org/2010/05/11/netneutrality-grover-afp/

Net neutrality, a guiding principle for preserving a free and fair Internet, means that Internet service providers are not allowed to discriminate based on content for its customers. However, telecommunications firms — like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others — are firmly against net neutrality because they would like to increase their profits by deciding which websites customers can see, and at what speed. The telecom industry has dumped hundreds of millions of dollars into a lobby campaign against net neutrality. As the FCC now takes up net neutrality rule making, the industry is pushing an “outside approach” of hiring front groups and astroturf operatives.

This morning, representatives from various front groups launched a new coordinated campaign to kill net neutrality. Speaking on Capitol Hill, these front groups took turns decrying the evils of the principle of a fair and unbiased Internet. LULAC, which is funded by AT&T, called Net Neutrality “Obamacare for the Internet.” (LULAC was not present at the press conference. The Hispanic Leadership Fund, another group funded by the telecom industry and opposed to net neutrality, spoke at the event. We apologize for the error.) Americans for Prosperity — a corporate front group founded by oil billionaire David Koch but also funded by telecom interests — unveiled a new ad smearing net neutrality as a “government takeover” (the initial ad buy is $1.4 million dollars). And Grover Norquist, representing his “Americans for Tax Reform” corporate front group, said net neutrality is like what China does, “putting policemen on every corner, on the street or on the Internet.” Watch it:




ThinkProgress has obtained a PowerPoint document which reveals how the telecom industry is orchestrating the latest campaign against Net Neutrality. Authored by representatives from the Atlas Network — a shell think tank used to coordinate corporate front group efforts worldwide — the document lays out the following strategy:

– Slides 7-8 calls for the campaign to target “libertarian minded internet users and video gamers” and “social conservative activists” with anti-government messages and a rebranding of net neutrality as “Net Brutality.”

– Slide 9 calls for a strategy of creating a Chinese blog to compare net neutrality to Chinese government censorship, outreach via social networking platforms like Twitter and Facebook.

– Slides 10-11 detail how representatives met at Grover Norquist’s infamous “Wednesday morning meeting” to orchestrate the new campaign. Norquist is known to use his Wednesday meetings to plot strategy and conservative coalition building towards lobbying goals.

The PowerPoint was created on April 14th, shortly before the campaign website officially launched. The “Net Brutality” website relies heavily on Americans for Prosperity sources, as well as a website called NetCompetition.org — which is openly funded by the American Cable Association, At&T, Comcast, and the US Telecom Association.

During the Jack Abramoff investigation, Norquist was exposed for selling support from his front groups to corporations. In one damning e-mail, Norquist is promised $50,000 dollars in exchange for providing his Americans for Tax Reform support to one of Abramoff’s clients. Today, Norquist was not only parroting the PowerPoint talking points at the press conference, but he also brought in other key conservative movement leaders and Republican lawmakers to the event.

In addition to the front groups, the loudest voice against net neutrality is still Glenn Beck, who has smeared free Internet proponents as Marxists and Communists, and has adopted the attack that net neutrality constitutes a “government takeover.” However, it is important to realize that even Beck is being fed with opposition research dug up by operatives at Americans for Prosperity. This research document, compiled by Americans for Prosperity staffers, lays out point by point the attacks Beck has used in the past few weeks to disparage net neutrality supporters. If Beck picks up this new outreach to video game enthusiasts and the false comparison to Chinese censorship, then the impact of the “Net Brutality” PowerPoint will be even more apparent.

Telecom firms like AT&T and Verizon are among the most profitable in the world, yet America lags behind other countries in terms of broadband access and speed. Instead of dumping lobbying money into anti-net neutrality front groups and fear-mongering campaigns, the telecom industry should invest in improving service and accessibility.
Update
CNET's Declan McCullagh has posted an item critical of this post. However, McCullagh misleads his readers by claiming the presentation was created only by "students" unrelated to any industry groups or lobbyists. The author and administrator of the "No Net Brutality" website is Kristin McMurray, a staff Project Manager of Americans for Limited Government's Sunshine Review front group. McCullagh playfully acknowledges the presenters met with the lobbyist-organized "Wednesday morning meeting," but takes their word that their "three minute" presentation had no influence. Of course, as this post notes, Norquist was caught yesterday parroting the same talking points from the presentation, along with the other telecom industry-funded front groups at the event. As Stopthecap.com observed yesterday, McMurray is using a professional PR service to track Internet discussion of her anti-net neutrality site. Grassroots, indeed.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline zimmer

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 170
This is some weird reverse psychology going on here... I guess Soros wants to pass a "net neutrality" bill and all the while have text in it that limits freedom of access, etc...


Offline Letsbereal

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 58,615
  • Know Thyself
Net neutrality comes back to haunt Google
« Reply #21 on: July 14, 2010, 10:22:25 AM »
Net neutrality comes back to haunt Google
13 July 2010
, by Richard Waters (The Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9b6bc780-8ea5-11df-8a67-00144feab49a.html

Google has become the main advocate in Washington for a set of regulations to prevent internet service providers favouring particular companies’ traffic

However, that campaign, over what is known as “net neutrality”, has handed a gift to its own detractors.

This year, “search neutrality” has become the rallying cry of activists who believe that Google has too much power to decide which internet sites are granted the attention that comes with a high search ranking, and which are consigned to outer darkness.

After regulating the “pipes” of the internet with net neutrality, says Frank Pasquale, a professor at Seton Hall law school, “we need to look at the next part of the bottleneck, and that means search”.

For now, there is no indication that Washington is interested in creating a regime to govern the search business, and the campaign has served mainly as a way for Google’s detractors to try to push it on to the defensive over other issues.

But antitrust regulators have already begun to look this year into how the company’s core search ranking system works. The announcement this month of the $700m acquisition of ITA Software, a travel technology company, is now set to extend that further.

Joaquín Almunia, Europe’s top competition official, last week gave the first direct indication that Brussels was taking Google’s search power seriously.

The European Commission began an informal review into allegations of bias in the search rankings early this year but Mr Almunia’s declaration that he was looking at the issues “very carefully” was seen in antitrust circles as a sign the issue was now squarely on Brussels’ agenda.

The German cartel office, meanwhile, is considering complaints brought by newspaper and magazine publishers, and regulators in Washington are being urged to scrutinise closely.

Speaking in an interview with the Financial Times this week, Barry Diller, who oversees a large collection of internet sites including travel service Expedia and search engine Ask, called on US regulators to either impose conditions on Google’s purchase of ITA or block the deal outright. Extending its reach into new areas such as travel would lead to Google promoting its own services above those of sites such as Expedia, Mr Diller said.

US regulators have also been taking informal soundings among companies for some months about the extent of Google’s influence on the internet, although that has not led to any official review, according to two people familiar with discussions.

The Commission case could become the thin end of the wedge in constraining Google’s power, according to some antitrust experts in Brussels.

If Brussels rules Google is dominant in its market, it would put the company on notice to act with “special responsibility” – a vague requirement in European law that could force it to re-examine many of its business practices, says Thomas Vinje, a partner at Clifford Chance. Among the issues it might have to reconsider, he adds, is whether it can give preferential treatment in search results to its own services, such as those complained of by Mr Diller.

Some critics are also calling for regulators to have closer oversight of Google’s core technology, to make sure no bias is at work. “We are asking it to open its algorithm to the Federal cartel office,” says Echkard Bremer, the lawyer representing German publishers.

Ultimately, whether regulators decide to intervene is likely to depend on their assessment of the company’s own assertion that internet users can easily go elsewhere if they do not like the search results they are being shown.

Google’s dominance may be less assured than it seems. A recent test showed that Google’s results are no better on average than those served up by Microsoft’s Bing, says Viktor Mayer-Schönberger, who is about to take up the position of professor of internet governance and regulation at Oxford University.

“The good news is that it means Google won’t get regulated,” Mr Mayer-Schönberger says. “The bad news is that when consumers figure that out, they could easily move.”

The habits of web users are also likely to influence the outcome. Services such as Facebook and Twitter help determine how people navigate the web. “The monopoly Google holds is less of a natural monopoly than people think,” says Dave Sifry, founder of Technorati. “In a way, search is the last war.”

For now, Google’s algorithm reigns supreme. But it is still too early to tell if it will be a permanent fixture.
->>>|:-) THE CITY INDIANS (-:|<<<-

Offline Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,941
Re: Net neutrality comes back to haunt Google
« Reply #22 on: July 14, 2010, 10:54:03 AM »
The Financial Times: Serving the needs of the NWO...

Net neutrality comes back to haunt Google
13 July 2010
, by Richard Waters (The Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9b6bc780-8ea5-11df-8a67-00144feab49a.html

For now, there is no indication that Washington is interested in creating a regime to govern the search business, and the campaign has served mainly as a way for Google’s detractors to try to push it on to the defensive over other issues.

And  the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, 
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren,  ye have done it unto me.

Matthew 25:40

Offline ekimdrachir

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,144
  • METATRON ON
    • Go Outside
Al Franken on net neutrality
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2010, 08:44:04 PM »

Offline donnay

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17,659
  • Live Free Or Die Trying!
Google, Verizon Deal May Kill Net Neutrality
« Reply #24 on: August 05, 2010, 10:21:22 AM »
Google, Verizon Deal May Kill Net Neutrality

By Rob Quinn

  (Newser)  – Google and Verizon are nearing a deal that could spell the end of one-speed-fits-all for Internet service. The firms are said to be on the brink of an agreement under which Verizon could give priority to traffic from content providers who paid for premium treatment. The deal would do away with the "net neutrality" principle and pave the way for premium Internet service packages, the New York Times reports.

Neither firm has commented publicly on the discussions, although insiders tell Bloomberg that a compromise has been reached that will allow Verizon to selectively slow or speed up content over mobile phones while maintaining net neutrality via its wires. Whatever agreement the companies settle on, analysts believe it will be a major influence on the FCC as it struggles to assert its authority to regulate broadband and mandate net neutrality.

Read more...
Please visit my website: https://www.theherbsofthefield.com/

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2010, 02:32:11 PM »
The Federal Communications Commission is expected to approve new Net neutrality rules that it believes will ensure free and open Internet access for years to come. The new rules will reportedly prevent fixed (ground) line broadband providers from blocking lawful Web content and services. Wireless broadband providers, meanwhile, will have the ability to block access to content and services as they see fit as long as they do not offer a competing service. Wireless carriers could, for example, block YouTube if the carrier did not offer a similar video sharing site.

The new rules will also supposedly discourage providers from charging fees to popular Web services such as Facebook or Google to deliver their content to your home faster.

The rules have garnered a lot of controversy. Senator Al Franken called the proposed rules "worse than nothing," but FCC commissioner Mignon L. Clybrun said the proposal "will establish clear rules to protect consumers' access."

Read More Here:  http://www.pcworld.com/article/214367/FCC_Net_Neutrality_Rules_What_the_Future_Might_Look_Like.html
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Rebelitarian

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,991
Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2010, 02:39:32 PM »
Figures the Rockefellers can't stand the fact that the internet exists and has done so much collateral damage to their NAU and other NWO plans.

They may have the economy in the toilet but legislatively they can't accomplish squat.

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
« Reply #27 on: December 21, 2010, 02:41:13 PM »
It's funny, on the Yahoo message boards, the brain-dead Liberals are crying that the Republicans are trying to block this and hurt the "little people" in favor of the big corporations.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline Rebelitarian

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,991
Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
« Reply #28 on: December 21, 2010, 02:54:24 PM »
Liberals and conservatives both are high passionate dimwits that are used by the NWO to destroy America.

According to liberals anything Obama does no matter how similar to Hitler is a good thing cuz he's their man.

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
« Reply #29 on: December 21, 2010, 03:31:57 PM »
I keep telling the Yahoo Libtards that Liberal Democrat Al Franken is against this, and they should research why.  But they just ignore me.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

wvoutlaw2002

  • Guest
Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
« Reply #30 on: December 21, 2010, 07:33:24 PM »
It's funny, on the Yahoo message boards, the brain-dead Liberals are crying that the Republicans are trying to block this and hurt the "little people" in favor of the big corporations.

Yet the "big corporations" that the libtards are accusing Republicans of being shills for co-opted "net neutrality" and will profit the most from the corporate co-opted "net neutrality". Libtards like to accuse conservative of being Big Business shills only to cover the fact that THEY are Big Business shills.

charrington

  • Guest
Only 21 Percent Of U.S. Voters Support Net Neutrality - Do'h
« Reply #31 on: January 01, 2011, 11:37:24 AM »
Though the cable companies, advocacy groups and politicians have been battling fiercely over net neutrality, a new poll shows that most voters do not support regulation.

Only one in five "likely voters" in America are for net neutrality, according to a new poll by Rasmussen. Fifty-four percent of respondents are outright opposed to regulation and 25 percent are not certain.

The numbers become starker when split down political lines. While Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly believe that free market competition is better than regulation in protecting Internet users, 46 percent of Democrats support regulation.

In addition, most Republicans and unaffiliated voters think that the FCC would use their authority to promote a political agenda, while a plurality of Democrats believe they would be unbiased.

Despite these results, it's still not clear that most voters understand what net neutrality actually is. Asked how closely they have been following stories about net neutrality, only 20 percent said they are following news of the net neutrality regulations "very closely," with 35 percent saying they're following it "somewhat closely."

What's more, the wording of the polling question querying these "likely voters" defines net neutrality in a very restricted way. The respondents were asked, "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?" With a topic as broad, and as complicated, as net neutrality, such a question addresses only one small part of the whole picture.

For example, Rasmussen could just as legitimately have asked, "Should all internet users have the same access to the same Internet, regardless of how much they pay?" Or it might have asked, "Should broadband carriers have the ability to block or remove content based on their discretion alone?"
MORE

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/us-voters-net-neutrality_n_802456.html

Offline Dok

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,269
    • end times and current events
House Passes Amendment to Block Funds for Net Neutrality Order
« Reply #32 on: February 18, 2011, 11:18:32 AM »
House Passes Amendment to Block Funds for Net Neutrality Order

The House passed an amendment Thursday that would bar the Federal Communications Commission from using any funding to implement the network-neutrality order it approved in December.

The amendment, approved on a 244-181 vote, was offered by Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee Chairman Greg Walden, R-Ore., to legislation that would fund government agencies for the rest of fiscal year 2011.

REST: http://www.nationaljournal.com/house-passes-amendment-to-block-funds-for-net-neutrality-order-20110217
HOW TO BE SAVED
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/how_to_be_saved.html

Ye Must Be Born Again!
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Basics/ye_must_be_born_again.htm

True Salvation & the TRUE Gospel/Good News!
http://www.contendingfortruth.com/?p=1060

how to avoid censorship ;)

Offline larsonstdoc

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 28,341
Net neutrality under fire from conservative group--Koch Backed
« Reply #33 on: March 11, 2011, 09:24:48 AM »
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/conservative-group-takes-aim-at-net-neutrality-2011-03-09?link=kiosk



Net neutrality under fire from conservative group
Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity rallies opposition to policy

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — A conservative group that has fueled strong opposition to several of President Barack Obama’s key initiatives is striving to needle the administration further over Internet regulation, and is achieving some success.

The Arlington, Va.-based Americans For Prosperity has worked to stir opposition to a new Federal Communications Commission order that solidifies what are called network-neutrality principles for much of the Internet, casting the policy as a “Washington takeover.”


On Wednesday, a House subcommittee voted to move a resolution forward that would reverse the FCC’s Net-neutrality order, adopted in December. The resolution may now make its way through Congress, and is subject to presidential veto.
I'M A DEPLORABLE KNUCKLEHEAD THAT SUPPORTS PRESIDENT TRUMP.  MAY GOD BLESS HIM AND KEEP HIM SAFE.

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,844
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
U.S. Internet rules (Net Neutrality) to take effect November 20
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2011, 06:45:22 AM »
(Reuters) - Long-delayed U.S. Internet rules that tackle the controversial issue of balancing consumer and content provider interests against those who sell access to the Web will take effect November 20.

The Federal Communications Commission's "open Internet" order was published in the Federal Register on Friday, and immediately drew threats of court and congressional challenges.

The rules were adopted by the FCC late last year after a lengthy debate, but only recently cleared a review by the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

Criticized by opponents as a legally shaky government intrusion into regulating the Internet, the new rules forbid broadband providers from blocking legal content but leave flexibility for providers to manage their networks.

Broadband provider Verizon Communications Inc has been a vociferous opponent, and renewed its pledge to take the FCC to court as soon as the rules are published.

"We have said all along that once we see the publication ... we intend to file another notice of appeal," Verizon spokesman Ed McFadden said.

For the past 10 years, the possibility of regulations to mandate the neutrality of the Internet -- in terms of restrictions on content, sites, platforms and types of equipment that may be attached -- has been the subject of fierce debate.

The latest rulemaking was prompted by a U.S. federal appeals court ruling last year that the FCC lacked the authority to stop Comcast Corp from blocking bandwidth-hogging applications on its broadband network.

The rules, adopted last December in a 3-2 vote, give the FCC power to ensure consumer access to huge movie files and other content while allowing Internet service providers to manage their networks to prevent congestion.

An FCC spokesman said the rules increase certainty and predictability, stimulating investment and ensuring job creation and economic growth.

But public interest groups criticized the rules as too weak, saying the FCC bent heavily to the will of big industry players including AT&T Inc and Comcast.

READ MORE:  http://news.yahoo.com/u-net-neutrality-rules-effect-november-160334496.html
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,291
Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2017, 01:23:11 PM »
Trump to sign broadband privacy repeal
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/32655...d-privacy-rules


Congress just killed your Internet privacy protections (A LIE!)
http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/28/technology...privacy-repeal/


AT&T, Comcast defend repeal of internet privacy rules
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/32670...t-privacy-rules


GOP faces backlash over attack on internet privacy rules
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/32663...t-privacy-rules

-----

Listen to Dr Corsi tell the truth about what Trump is trying to do in repealing Obama's internet rule. HES TRYING TO PROTECT YOUR PRIVACY BY TRANSFERRING REGULATION OF THE NET BACK TO THE FTC AWAY FROM THE FCC THAT LETS GOOGLE FACEBOOK DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH YOUR DATA! (Hr 2 on Infowars 3-31-17)

http://cdn1.gcnlive.com/cache/gcn_archives/TheAlexJonesShow/TheAlexJonesShowMar312017Hour2.mp3


GOOGLE, SOROS BEHIND “FAKE NEWS” ON “INTERNET PRIVACY” - Another hoax in the war on the First Amendment
https://www.infowars.com/google-soros-behin...ternet-privacy/
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,291
Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2017, 01:40:55 PM »
Big Brother tightens choke hold on Internet - U.N., FCC intensify efforts to regulate electronic speech
http://www.wnd.com/2010/12/241773/

Quote
Published: 12/19/2010
FROM JEROME CORSI'S RED ALERTWorldNetDaily Exclusive

Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium online newsletter published by the current No. 1 best-selling author, WND staff writer and senior managing director of the Financial Services Group at Gilford Securities.

The United Nations is now joining the Obama administration and Democratic commissioners on the FCC in an attempt to regulate the Internet, Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert reports.

“The U.N. is reacting to concerns of member governments, including the United States, that the Internet has made companies like WikiLeaks possible, while the FCC is more concerned about conservative news outlets on the Internet that are increasingly undermining government attempts to control the news through sympathetic mainstream media outlets,” Corsi wrote.

“What is at stake is the future of electronic free-speech rights, as governments around the world realize how much less control government authorities have with a robust and critical press able to operate freely on the Internet.”

Australia’s ItNews.com reported that the U.N. is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to “harmonize” global efforts by policymakers to regulate the Internet.

The U.N. claims authority to regulate the Internet under a U.N. Economic and Social Council resolution passed in July that invited the U.N. secretary-general to begin discussions on coordinating government efforts to regulate the Internet on a global basis.

“Obviously, the U.N. is uncomfortable with anything like the Internet that the globalists cannot control,” Corsi wrote.

Meanwhile, the FCC is preparing in its Dec. 21 meeting this week to vote on a proposal called “net neutrality.”

For more information on the “net neutrality” rules and government attempts to regulate the Internet, read Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, the premium, online intelligence news source by the WND staff writer, columnist and author of the New York Times No. 1 best-seller, “The Obama Nation.“

Red Alert’s author, who received a doctorate from Harvard in political science in 1972, is the author of the No. 1 New York Times best-sellers “The Obama Nation” and (with co-author John E. O’Neill) “Unfit for Command.” He is also the author of several other books, including “America for Sale,” “The Late Great U.S.A.” and “Why Israel Can’t Wait.” In addition to serving as a senior staff reporter for WorldNetDaily, Corsi is a senior managing director in the financial-services group at Gilford Securities.

Disclosure: Gilford Securities, founded in 1979, is a full-service boutique investment firm headquartered in New York City providing an array of financial services to institutional and retail clients, from investment banking and equity research to retirement planning and wealth-management services. The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author are his alone and do not necessarily reflect Gilford Securities Incorporated’s views, opinions, positions or strategies. Gilford Securities Incorporated makes no representations as to accuracy, completeness, currentness, suitability or validity of any information expressed herein and will not be liable for any errors, omissions or delays in this information or any losses, injuries or damages arising from its display or use.

For full immediate access to Jerome Corsi’s Red Alert, get your free subscription now.

Video Chris Matthews Hammers the President
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,291
Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #37 on: March 31, 2017, 01:53:49 PM »
FTC regulations protect your privacy, not the FCC. Obama bill tried to change it to the FCC who caters to the big boys Google, Facebook who intrude on your privacy!
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-ce...y/data-security


Jerome Corsi in interview above stated that the Democrats want internet under the FCC so they can get it under Title II.

Net Neutrality is also a fraud because it caters to the big guys like Google, Facebook who dont give a damn about your privacy! Look at the topics: Google, Facebook at:
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Decep...p?showforum=106
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

Online EvadingGrid

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,275
  • Truthers are not Trumpers
    • Trump Bot Free Zone
Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #38 on: March 31, 2017, 01:54:29 PM »
Repealing Broadband Privacy Rules, Congress Sides with the Cable and Telephone Industry

SOURCE E F F
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/congress-sides-cable-and-telephone-industry

Putting the interests of Internet providers over Internet users, Congress today voted to erase landmark broadband privacy protections. If the bill is signed into law, companies like Cox, Comcast, Time Warner, AT&T, and Verizon will have free rein to hijack your searches, sell your data, and hammer you with unwanted advertisements. Worst yet, consumers will now have to pay a privacy tax by relying on VPNs to safeguard their information. That is a poor substitute for legal protections.

Make no mistake, by a vote of 215 to 205 a slim majority of the House of Representatives have decided to give our personal information to an already highly profitable cable and telephone industry so that they can increase their profits with our data. The vote broke along party lines, with Republicans voting yes, although 15 Republicans broke ranks to vote against the repeal with the Democrats.

Should President Donald Trump sign S.J. Res. 34 into law, big Internet providers will be given new powers to harvest your personal information in extraordinarily creepy ways. They will watch your every action online and create highly personalized and sensitive profiles for the highest bidder. All without your consent. This breaks with the decades long legal tradition that your communications provider is never allowed to monetize your personal information without asking for your permission first. This will harm our cybersecurity as these companies become giant repositories of personal data. It won't be long before the government begins demanding access to the treasure trove of private information Internet providers will collect and store.

While today is extremely disappointing, there is still tomorrow. Without a doubt Internet providers (with the exception of the small providers who stood with us) will engage in egregious practices, and we are committed to mobilizing the public to push back. EFF will continue the fight to restore our privacy rights on all fronts. We will fight to restore your privacy rights in the courts, in the states, in Washington, D.C., and with technology. We are prepared for the long haul of pushing a future Congress to reverse course and once again side with the public.
“Hey, I’m a nationalist and a globalist”
-- Donald Trump

Article : "A Limited Hangout Operation ?"

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,291
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!