PrisonPlanet Forum

***THE MAIN BOARDS - Welcome to the Prison Planet Educational Forum and Library*** => PhD Investigative Reports (only for the hardcore) => Topic started by: liko on November 04, 2008, 10:23:16 am

Title: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: liko on November 04, 2008, 10:23:16 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
Title: This is why net neutrality is important (pic)
Post by: remixx on December 16, 2008, 10:47:05 pm

(http://kensingtonvictoria.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/thumbnail_net_pic.jpg)


(http://isen.com/blog/uploaded_images/5z6vt4n-720249.jpg)
Title: Re: This is why net neutrality is important (pic)
Post by: Monkeypox on December 16, 2008, 10:58:22 pm
Oh, it's coming.  Only a matter of time.
Title: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: nofakenews on December 23, 2008, 03:56:44 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...
Title: Re: Chamber backs broadband deployment--without Net neutrality laws
Post by: nofakenews on December 23, 2008, 10:41:57 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!
Title: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: donnay on September 18, 2009, 02:53:56 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."
Title: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
Post by: DCUBED on September 19, 2009, 08:38:05 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.
Title: Re: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
Post by: wvoutlaw2002 on September 19, 2009, 03:23:15 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 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/obamas-first-appointment-is-son-of-zionist-terrorist.html)?
Title: Re: FCC to propose 'Net neutrality' rules
Post by: luckee1 on September 19, 2009, 03:43:51 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
Title: U.S. moves to adopt 6 net neutrality rules
Post by: Harconen on September 24, 2009, 09:00:35 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.
Title: Re: U.S. moves to adopt 6 net neutrality rules
Post by: Freeski on October 21, 2009, 02:29:56 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.
Title: Verizon CEO slams Net neutrality //Carriers Eye Pay-As-You-Go Internet
Post by: ekimdrachir on October 22, 2009, 03:39:28 am
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-10379932-266.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20 (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 (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.
Title: Re: Verizon CEO slams Net neutrality //Carriers Eye Pay-As-You-Go Internet
Post by: TheHouseMan on October 22, 2009, 04:02:33 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
Title: If net neutrality disappears...
Post by: TheHouseMan on October 28, 2009, 06:51:35 am
Expect your Internet to look like this if John McCain's treasonous bill passes:

(http://i.imgur.com/5RrWm.png)
Title: Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
Post by: menace on January 13, 2010, 04:19:41 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
Title: Re: Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
Post by: menace on January 13, 2010, 04:38:43 pm
The dead line well be here soon, so come on! speak out agianst it.
Title: Re: Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
Post by: Brocke on January 13, 2010, 04:47:19 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!!!

Title: Re: Tell the FCC to Stand Up for Net Neutrality
Post by: menace on January 14, 2010, 07:14:57 pm
The deadline is tonight.
Title: Soros' Think Progress says: Telecoms’ Secret Plan To Attack Net Neutrality
Post by: Dig on May 12, 2010, 10:46:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Soros' Think Progress says: Telecoms’ Secret Plan To Attack Net Neutrality
Post by: zimmer on May 12, 2010, 10:55:01 pm
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...
Title: FCC holds closed door meetings with Google, ISP's and SKype for net neutrality
Post by: charrington on June 22, 2010, 11:13:57 am
ISP = AT&T , Verizon etc. The outcome isn't going to be good...

http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2010/06/back-room-net-neutrality-deal-reform-groups-up-in-arms.ars


http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/22-3
Title: Net neutrality comes back to haunt Google
Post by: Letsbereal on July 14, 2010, 09:22:25 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.
Title: Re: Net neutrality comes back to haunt Google
Post by: Satyagraha on July 14, 2010, 09:54:03 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.

Title: Al Franken on net neutrality
Post by: ekimdrachir on July 28, 2010, 07:44:04 pm
Al Franken on net neutrality
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8c3_1280303670
Title: Google, Verizon Deal May Kill Net Neutrality
Post by: donnay on August 05, 2010, 09:21:22 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 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/technology/05secret.html?_r=2&hp).

Neither firm has commented publicly on the discussions, although insiders tell Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-08-04/google-verizon-are-said-to-have-reached-deal-on-how-to-handle-web-traffic.html) 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... (http://www.newser.com/story/97334/google-verizon-deal-may-kill-net-neutrality.html#ixzz0vk1KC6Ei)
Title: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
Post by: Monkeypox on December 21, 2010, 01:32:11 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
Title: Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
Post by: Rebelitarian on December 21, 2010, 01:39:32 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.
Title: Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
Post by: Monkeypox on December 21, 2010, 01:41:13 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.
Title: Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
Post by: Rebelitarian on December 21, 2010, 01:54:24 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.
Title: Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
Post by: Monkeypox on December 21, 2010, 02:31:57 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.
Title: Re: FCC Net Neutrality Rules: What the Future Might Look Like
Post by: wvoutlaw2002 on December 21, 2010, 06:33:24 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.
Title: Only 21 Percent Of U.S. Voters Support Net Neutrality - Do'h
Post by: charrington on January 01, 2011, 10:37:24 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
Title: House Passes Amendment to Block Funds for Net Neutrality Order
Post by: Dok on February 18, 2011, 10:18:32 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
Title: Net neutrality under fire from conservative group--Koch Backed
Post by: larsonstdoc on March 11, 2011, 08:24:48 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.
Title: U.S. Internet rules (Net Neutrality) to take effect November 20
Post by: Monkeypox on September 24, 2011, 05:45:22 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
Title: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 12:23:11 pm
Trump to sign broadband privacy repeal
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/32655...d-privacy-rules (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/326554-trump-to-sign-resolution-nixing-broadband-privacy-rules)


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


AT&T, Comcast defend repeal of internet privacy rules
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/32670...t-privacy-rules (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/326707-att-comcast-defend-repeal-of-internet-privacy-rules)


GOP faces backlash over attack on internet privacy rules
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/32663...t-privacy-rules (http://thehill.com/policy/technology/326631-gop-faces-backlash-over-attack-on-internet-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/ (https://www.infowars.com/google-soros-behind-fake-news-on-internet-privacy/)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 12:40:55 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
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 12:53:49 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 (https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/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 (http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showforum=106)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on March 31, 2017, 12:54:29 pm
Repealing Broadband Privacy Rules, Congress Sides with the Cable and Telephone Industry
(https://www.eff.org/sites/all/themes/frontier/images/logo_full.png)
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.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 01:16:45 pm
Pelosi Calls on Internet Providers to Weigh In on GOP Measure to Eliminate Internet Privacy
http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/32817/


House SJ Res 34
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22SJ+Res+34%22%5D%7D&r=1

https://www.congress.gov/115/bills/sjres34/BILLS-115sjres34enr.pdf
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 01:31:05 pm
S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/03/28/statement-administration-policy-sjres-34-–-disapproving-federal

Quote
S.J.Res. 34 – Disapproving the Federal Communications Commission’s Rule on Privacy of Customers of Broadband Services

(Sen. Flake, R-AZ, and 24 cosponsors)

The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services," 81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016). The rule applies the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications carriers. In particular, the rule requires ISPs to obtain affirmative "opt-in" consent from consumers to use and share certain information, including app usage and web browsing history. It also allows ISPs to use and share other information, including e-mail addresses and service tier information, unless a customer "opts-out." In doing so, the rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.

If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.


https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-02/pdf/2016-28006.pdf
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 01:55:23 pm
2016 - New FCC regulations may not give consumers true online privacy protection
https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/23/new-fcc-regulations-may-not-give-consumers-true-online-privacy-protection/

Quote
Here’s the fundamental mistake in the way the FCC has framed the proposal. Google, Facebook, Amazon and a myriad of other “edge providers” are not covered by the eventual privacy rules that will be drafted.

Their exclusion undermines the Commission’s laudable goals. There should be consistent, across the board rules for collecting and using consumer data regardless of the online company, platform, application or service being used.

Why is this so crucial? Because a narrow focus on just the ISPs is short sighted given the multiplicity of devices consumers use and will be using. It also doesn’t reflect reality and creates a piecemeal approach that will only create unnecessary confusion for consumers.

It’s likely that many consumers aren’t thinking about how they are specifically connecting to the Internet when they go online. They log on, go to a website and start roaming — from a particular business site then maybe to Facebook or Amazon or Snapchat via a mobile device and back and forth.

So where will consumers go if they have a privacy problem with their broadband ISP or Amazon, for example. The FCC’s coverage omission creates an unintended variation on “who’s on first?”

Here’s why. The FCC’s now expanded broadband ISP oversight has resulted in decreased privacy jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with regard specifically to ISPs. So there will be FCC privacy rules for some online entities, a different set of FTC privacy rules for other entities and potentially no or conflicting rules for other online platforms.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 02:07:23 pm
GOOGLE WANTS ITS OWN PUPPET AS FTC CHAIR TO BLOCK ANTI-TRUST ACTION Tech giant fears Trump might open an antitrust investigation

https://www.infowars.com/google-wants-its-own-puppet-as-ftc-chair-to-block-anti-trust-action/

Quote
This is especially important given the steps the Trump administration took to advance a bill through Congress to cancel the FCC order on “Internet Privacy” that President Obama engineered in October 2016 at the urging of Google.

That the White House was not abandoning Internet privacy, but transferring the rule-making on Internet privacy from the FCC to the FTC was made abundantly clear by White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer at the White House briefing on Thursday.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 03:24:40 pm
Trump’s new FCC chief is Ajit Pai, and he wants to destroy net neutrality
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/23/14338522/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-donald-trump-appointment



http://thehill.com/policy/technology/195360-court-strikes-down-net-neutrality-rules
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 05:28:20 pm
We Should Welcome Trump's Reversal Of FCC Digital Privacy Rules
https://www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2017/02/02/how-many-regulators-does-it-take-to-protect-our-digital-privacy/#2e090354372a

Quote
Americans should not fret, however, about the elimination of any ill-conceived rule.

Before the FCC nosed in, the Federal Trade Commission protected our digital privacy. The FTC’s privacy rules established a comprehensive set of consumer protections that applied to all firms on the Internet.

---

Passed on a party-line vote in October 2016, the FCC’s privacy rules subject Internet service providers (ISPs) to a stricter standard of scrutiny than their online advertising rivals. When it comes to using your data from web browsing and app usage, the FCC requires that an ISP’s customers “opt in” to any information-sharing program. In contrast, the FTC’s privacy rules governing dominant edge providers like Google and Facebook require their customers to “opt out” of any arrangement that monetizes personal data.

The FCC’s rationale for adopting a stricter standard was that ISPs allegedly enjoy a unique and pervasive visibility into broadband customer information that the edge providers do not have. A study by professor Peter Swire of Georgia Tech shattered that basis, however, showing that “non-ISPs often have access to more and a wider range of user information than ISPs.”

The FCCʼs privacy rules were needed to fill a temporary void in consumer protection created by—wait for it—the FCC. Thatʼs right: By reclassifying ISPs as common carriers in February 2015, the FCCʼs Open Internet Order divested the FTC of its statutory authority to regulate ISPs, as the FTC is barred from regulating common carriers. So one regulatory overreach begets another. This is how bureaucracies spin out of control.


http://peterswire.net/wp-content/uploads/Online-Privacy-and-ISPs-1.pdf
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on March 31, 2017, 05:50:34 pm
REMEMBER THIS? SCUM ALWAYS DOES THINGS INCREMENTALLY! "Obama's FCC’s Internet Takeover Would Reduce Internet to a Public Utility"
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerpen/obamas-fccs-internet-takeover-would-reduce-internet-public-utility

Quote
By Phil Kerpen | June 15, 2016

Yesterday the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld President Obama’s so-called “net neutrality” regulations in a 2-1 decision. These are the rules that re-classified the Internet as a “public utility” under a Depression-era law, and leave us on the hook for a massive new tax increase and countless new regulations that are already having a dramatic negative impact on investment.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: egypt on March 31, 2017, 06:17:52 pm

Well, seeing what they have done with other "public utilities" expect the very highest price gouging!

love, e
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 01, 2017, 04:33:29 am
White House :


    The Administration strongly supports House passage of S.J.Res. 34, which would nullify the Federal Communications Commission’s final rule titled “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunication Services,” 81 Fed. Reg. 87274 (December 2, 2016). The rule applies the privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other telecommunications carriers. In particular, the rule requires ISPs to obtain affirmative “opt-in” consent from consumers to use and share certain information, including app usage and web browsing history. It also allows ISPs to use and share other information, including e-mail addresses and service tier information, unless a customer “opts-out.” In doing so, the rule departs from the technology-neutral framework for online privacy administered by the Federal Trade Commission. This results in rules that apply very different regulatory regimes based on the identity of the online actor.

    If S.J.Res. 34 were presented to the President, his advisors would recommend that he sign the bill into law.



Nota Bene :
Try and remember Trump has NOT made a decision - yet.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Dude447 on April 01, 2017, 05:23:30 am
Talking of perpetual liars  Rachel Maddow  needs to stfu  or man up and step outside .on a side note the guy who punched the masked anti trump moron  8)
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Satyagraha on April 01, 2017, 10:30:07 am
So let me see if I get this...

Right now, today, ISPs are under the FCC regulatory body.
Today, the law prohibiting ISPs from selling data has been repealed.
So, today, they can sell our data.

Is this true?

Ok, so the plan is to move the ISPs to come under the FTC, where our data will be protected.
Is this true?

When will ISPs be moved to FTC?
How long will it take?
Can ISPs sell our data in the meantime?

Confusing.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 01, 2017, 10:54:19 am
The ACTUAL DOCUMENT !!!!!!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/86

This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." The rule published on December 2, 2016: (1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information.
Congress.gov


For normal people who use normal English a summary :
They (Congress) have Deleted your privacy at the ISP level, they can now sell your data.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Satyagraha on April 01, 2017, 11:11:47 am
The ACTUAL DOCUMENT !!!!!!
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/86

This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." The rule published on December 2, 2016: (1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information.
Congress.gov


For normal people who use normal English a summary :
They (Congress) have Deleted your privacy at the ISP level, they can now sell your data.

Yes, I get that rule.
So as long as the ISPs fall under FCC regulations, they can sell our data.

I get that.

What I DON'T get is how this helps get the ISPs under the FTC?
If that's the plan (moving ISPs under FTC so we'll have privacy), then when will that happen.
And how does removing the rule that they can't sell our data today HELP with the plan to move ISPs to the FTC?

Inquiring minds...
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 01, 2017, 11:28:21 am
What I see is :

They want ISP to be able to compete with the likes of Facebook, Google, etc . . .  on a level playing field.

At present they think it is unfair that Google and Facebook can collect your private data and the ISP can not.
Just plain not fair.
Anticompetitive practice

Which is all well and good if you buy into various right wing ideologies and economics.


Only remember the commodity they want to open up to increased competition, is selling your private online activity as bulk data.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Dude447 on April 01, 2017, 03:02:12 pm
Dont they do all that anyway ?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Adolf Hilter on April 01, 2017, 03:32:55 pm
Yes, I get that rule.
So as long as the ISPs fall under FCC regulations, they can sell our data.

I get that.

What I DON'T get is how this helps get the ISPs under the FTC?
If that's the plan (moving ISPs under FTC so we'll have privacy), then when will that happen.
And how does removing the rule that they can't sell our data today HELP with the plan to move ISPs to the FTC?

Inquiring minds...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jobfvKVBT4E
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 01, 2017, 04:02:13 pm
FTC Protecting Consumer Privacy (With the repeal of Obama reg, it reverts back to the FTC)

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/privacy-and-security/data-security

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/media-resources/protecting-consumer-privacy/enforcing-privacy-promises

NOTE: FTC and FCC are different agencies! The FTC has more robust rules to protect your privacy. It also will not allow google special favors to do as they please, like the Obama scam did. This is why Trump is reverting it back to the FTC from the FCC.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 01, 2017, 05:22:42 pm
New FCC head, Ajit Pai, dissented from and exposed Obama's secretive/fraudulent change, and prob why Trump chose him to head FCC. His dissent below:
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A5.pdf

Quote
Pg 16 Pai dissent

And the situation didn't improve once the White House announced President Obama's plan and “ask[ed]” the FCC to “implement” it.89  The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May.  It differs so dramatically that even net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in recent days to make last-minute filings registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far.90  Yet the American people to this day have not been allowed to see President Obama's plan.  It has remained secret.

Especially given the unique importance of the Internet, Commissioner O'Rielly and I asked for the plan to be released to the public.  Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton requested this as well.  And according to a survey last week by a respected Democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the document public.91  But still the FCC's leadership has insisted on keeping it hidden.  We have to pass President Obama's 317-page plan so that the American people can find out what is in it.

This isn't how the FCC should operate.  We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record.  We shouldn't be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the White House.

And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote.  There was no need for us to resolve this matter today.  There is no immediate crisis in the Internet marketplace that demands immediate action.

The backers of the President's plan know this.  But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day.  They know that the more the American people learn about this plan, the less they like it.  That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House.  And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.[/b


Trump is correcting a fraud out of the Obama White House. It appears to be but one step toward control of the internet and that would have increased prices, etc. Obama did this totally in secret and defrauded the people, like he did on so many things during his admin. Disgusting!

Now the media lies to the public saying it will affect their privacy, when the whole change was a fraud that Trump is reversing to help the public.  MORE LIES OUT OF THE MEDIA!

READ THE DISSENT DOC ABOVE!! PAI WAS AT THE FCC WHEN THIS OCCURRED!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Satyagraha on April 01, 2017, 11:09:28 pm
Ok, thanks for all the links - I've got to catch up and read all of this!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 04:40:32 am

Now the media lies to the public saying it will affect their privacy, when the whole change was a fraud that Trump is reversing to help the public.  MORE LIES OUT OF THE MEDIA!

Try reading the actual Document :
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/86


This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services." The rule published on December 2, 2016: (1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services, (2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information, (3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements, (4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and (5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information.
Congress.gov


Let me break it down for you . . .

This joint resolution nullifies the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission entitled "Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services."
Translation : First it says this is about Deleting Previous Legislation, then it gets specific by saying Who the Rule belong to (FCC) and then it says the name of it

Next it lists the 5 things to be DELETED

(1) applies the customer privacy requirements of the Communications Act of 1934 to broadband Internet access service and other telecommunications services,
(2) requires telecommunications carriers to inform customers about rights to opt in or opt out of the use or the sharing of their confidential information,
(3) adopts data security and breach notification requirements,
(4) prohibits broadband service offerings that are contingent on surrendering privacy rights, and
(5) requires disclosures and affirmative consent when a broadband provider offers customers financial incentives in exchange for the provider's right to use a customer's confidential information.
Congress.gov


Don't Believe ANYONE
Read the Actual Original Document
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 06:57:55 am
Try reading the actual Document :
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/86


Eg,

They nullified what Obama did because he did it in secret and it was wrong. The Ftc has handled internet privacy since the beginning of the internet. Obama tried to change it and totally reclassify it. Bad policy. This would allow more control over the net in the future. That means they would eventually control anyone who disagrees with them. Thats not a free internet. So now they lie. Unacceptable!

You should read the dissent posted above. What you are reading is very short and thus gives no real background.

Stop changing the titlte of this thread! Thank you,


Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 07:02:55 am

Eg,

You should read the dissent posted above. What you are reading is very short and thus gives no real background.

Stop changing the title of this thread! Thank you,

"Now the media lies to the public saying it will affect their privacy"
Let me see, is that statement true or false ? - LOL


Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 07:31:23 am

Eg,

You should read the dissent posted above. What you are reading is very short and thus gives no real background.

Stop changing the titlte of this thread! Thank you,

I also spent some time on Jerome Corsi's little speech on the Alex Jones Show (http://cdn1.gcnlive.com/cache/gcn_archives/TheAlexJonesShow/TheAlexJonesShowMar312017Hour2.mp3), I even went so far as to Transcribe some of it, as it was that shocking.

Corsi argues that the current law which provides only limited protection, should be scrapped so we have no protection.

Corsi also makes the most backwards and inside out claim - which is a topic in its own right :
Now the Internet Service Providers don't typically have your user data, they, they, tie you into the internet and then where you go is not traced by the ISPs.


Well the ISPs would never, ever publicly admit they are tracking user activity because that would be a confession of illegal activity. Secondly, they would loose a lot of customers. So in one sense its true, but it is a complete misdirection because the change in the law is to allow the ISPs to do exactly what Corsi says they are not doing....

I can break it down . . .


Internet Service Providers don't typically have your user data
Note the qualifications, typically - hell yea its go to jail illegal unless this new Law gets signed by Trump.


Internet Service Providers don't typically have your user data
The ISP does not have just your user data like Facebook - It has all your data.


they, they, tie you into the internet
Yes ISP is the bit that connects you to the internet - Its mandatory - unlike using Edge Providers such as Facebook.


and then where you go is not traced by the ISPs.
The whole point of the new law is to allow ISPs to track everything you do on the internet. We are not talking just what you do in your browser, but all the DNS queries.


This has nothing what so ever to do with my views on Trump - Trump has not Signed !!!!
IF he signs it, then I will dump some of it on Trump - but so far it has been the other lot, not the Whitehouse.
Lastly, sorry for any errors in my transcription.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 07:34:42 am
There is much more to this than this one tiny resolution. Now we see Obama has taken many actions to control and regulate the net.

---

Obama's FCC’s Internet Takeover Would Reduce Internet to a Public Utility
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerpen/obamas-fccs-internet-takeover-would-reduce-internet-public-utility

Senate Must Stop Obama Internet Takeover

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/23/senate-must-stop-obama-internet-takeover.html

Today, the Obama administration officially published the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) so-called net neutrality rules in the Federal Register.  These rules would undo a decade of free-market, hands-off Internet policy that has made the Internet the greatest engine of economic growth, creativity, and innovation the world has ever seen.  They would set us down a path to reducing the Internet into a government-regulated, government-controlled public utility.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 07:38:17 am
Eg,

I am asking you one more time to stop changing the title of this thread. If you want to start another with your view, do so.

Dont make me regret welcoming you back to the forum after being absent during the election of Trump because you didnt like him.

This is not the EG who was here back then. You were respectful then.

(a)
Trump is not in this fight - yet.
IF Trump signs off, then that situation changes.

(b)
It is a matter of written record that the law change removes privacy rights.

(c)
That your title claims it is repealing something passed under Obama is correct.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 07:48:37 am
Obama made several moves for a takeover of the Internet! There is much more to this than one short Resolution seeking rectification to what Obama secretly created in the last days of his pathetic admin. Obama acted incrementally, like globalists typically do. We must look back over 8 yrs at the totality of his acts to see the truth. He gave over ICANN also.

-----

Stop Obama’s Internet giveaway - Ending ICANN could lead to censorship (What is the current status of this?)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/14/stop-president-obamas-internet-giveaway/

EFF comments on ICANN change:
https://www.eff.org/issues/icann

Quote
ICANN's susceptibility to capture has been no more evident than in the excessive deference given to the interests of intellectual property owners. Examples of this include: (see list)

Fact Checking Obama’s Internet Takeover
http://www.internetfreedomcoalition.com/?p=4914


Obama's FCC’s Internet Takeover Would Reduce Internet to a Public Utility
http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-kerpen/obamas-fccs-internet-takeover-would-reduce-internet-public-utility

Senate Must Stop Obama Internet Takeover
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/23/senate-must-stop-obama-internet-takeover.html

Quote
Today, the Obama administration officially published the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) so-called net neutrality rules in the Federal Register.  These rules would undo a decade of free-market, hands-off Internet policy that has made the Internet the greatest engine of economic growth, creativity, and innovation the world has ever seen.  They would set us down a path to reducing the Internet into a government-regulated, government-controlled public utility.


Note also how there is major censorship currently on the net claiming copyright. This is really about views they dont like. Put the whole picture together people. Be warned! This is about control of the internet and it is being done incrementally on many fronts!

Imo, Trump is trying to roll these controls back so you can keep your free and open internet!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 08:25:57 am
|^|

So now you are against Net Neutrality ?
EPIC.


Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 08:38:36 am
|^|

So now you are against Net Neutrality ?
EPIC.

Eg, i gave you a chance. Now you are being reported.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 08:47:59 am
Eg, i gave you a chance. Now you are being reported.

Naughty me . . . debunked this misleading Thread Title :
Re: Media lies! Trump is trying to protect your net privacy by repealing Obama bill!

The hard evidence of the actual Congressional Record :
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/86

I also took the time to follow all your links that you posted.
I find it very hard to imagine that you extended me the courtesy of actually reading anything I posted.

Its in black and white, a repeal of consumer protection from ISPs spying on customers without consent.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 08:53:04 am
|^|

So now you are against Net Neutrality ?
EPIC.


Why You Should Demand 'Net Morality' Instead of 'Net Neutrality'

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160405_why_you_should_demand_net_morality_instead_of_net_neutrality/

http://www.martingeddes.com/1261-2/
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 08:59:42 am

Naughty me . .


I agree!

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 09:04:01 am
Senate votes to overturn FCC regulations on internet privacy
Published time: 24 Mar, 2017 01:02
Edited time: 24 Mar, 2017 16:11
https://www.rt.com/usa/382102-fcc-privacy-resolution-isp/

 Internet service providers may be able to gather private and sensitive data from their customers and sell it to the highest bidder, now that the Senate has voted to repeal some FCC regulations.

On Thursday, the Senate voted 50-48 along party lines to approve a joint resolution (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/34/text) that overturns Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules relating to “Protecting the Privacy of Customers of Broadband and Other Telecommunications Services.”

After the vote, the FCC released a statement saying that if the rules are overturned, it will create “a massive gap in consumer protection law as broadband and cable companies now have no discernible privacy requirements. This is the antithesis of putting #ConsumersFirst,” FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and FTC Commissioner Terrell McSweeny said.


READ MORE
https://www.rt.com/usa/382102-fcc-privacy-resolution-isp/

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 02, 2017, 09:24:12 am
https://youtu.be/Gb2DwtlIXS4?t=870

Published on Feb 7, 2017

On tonight’s Big Picture, Thom discusses court arguments on the Muslim ban and Trump’s foreign policy towards Iran with Jamal Abdi, Policy Director of the National Iranian American Council. Then, Thom talks to Bryan Pruitt of RedState and Kymone Freeman of We Act Radio about the FCC head’s push to gut net neutrality, and whether our country is really governed by Donald Trump or Steve Bannon.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Satyagraha on April 02, 2017, 10:29:22 am
https://youtu.be/Gb2DwtlIXS4?t=870

Published on Feb 7, 2017

On tonight’s Big Picture, Thom discusses court arguments on the Muslim ban and Trump’s foreign policy towards Iran with Jamal Abdi, Policy Director of the National Iranian American Council. Then, Thom talks to Bryan Pruitt of RedState and Kymone Freeman of We Act Radio about the FCC head’s push to gut net neutrality, and whether our country is really governed by Donald Trump or Steve Bannon.

Good interview... but DISTURBING--->

They are reconstructing the cable business model - ON THE INTERNET!!! BULLSH*T!

Pay to view news - packages like Cable offers - and guess what news WON'T BE in the 'packages'?
(the idiot sitting there, suggesting consumers can just 'change' their cable provider is living in an alternate universe.)
For MOST people, there is only ONE provider.

Corporate-controlled MSM today...
Corporate-controlled Internet information is on the horizon.
We've seen this coming for long time.

However, this goes to explaining why the infighting between FCC and FTC.
Internet as a corporate business enterprise --> THAT'S FTC.
People on the internet are "consumers" and they need "advertisements" - FTC.
People on the internet are troublemakers, mucking up the 'official narratives' - they need to be shut down --- FTC.

It won't be Federal COMMUNICATIONS... it will be Federal TRADE. Big difference.

I wonder what Alex thinks of this possibility - because I don't expect to see Infowars on the list of 'cable' news packages presented to internet users by the same MSM people who bring you MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, et al. Will there be bandwidth for independent news organizations to send their broadcasts out? Or will they reside on the V E R Y S L O W net?

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Satyagraha on April 02, 2017, 11:24:42 am
Back in 11-10-2009, discussing the government's plan to control the internet... a few points to the issue of a free and open internet vs. one that is corporate-controlled:


How will that happen?

Most Americans won't notice it. They will still be able to get to their favorite sites; their bank, the online shopping sites, facebook or myspace. The only people who will notice this will be people who look for truth online; Alex Jones sites, this forum, Rense, Alan Watt, and all torrent sites will be blocked (no documentaries), no David Icke, no WeAreChange sites, YouTube will be completely scrubbed, and they will use Artificial Intelligence (Ptech) to search for anything that might be 'truth' - by using key words.. or by using semantic understanding of languages (all languages on earth) - to 'filter' out the truth. If it fails to block a truth site; it will 'learn' from that mistake and will never 'fail' on that particular criteria again. It is unstoppable.

What will all the large and small private internet companies do? 

The cybersecurity bill affects any company or entity that the president decides is part of the 'critical' infrastructure - which could include your home computer. When they describe 'critical infrastructure' - the implication is that there might be pc's that aren't part of this. This is misleading and designed to give you the impression that your pc won't be affected. Don't forget they do these things "incrementally" - today its federal government computers, tomorrow it's your pc. The bill will allow this to happen; count on it.

Wont there be a huge outcry as livelihoods fold everywhere?

Do you hear a huge outcry about the stolen $28 trillion? Are people out in the streets screaming about the unemployment rate now? They approach these things in a way that has been meticulously planned for years - they do it slowly. Companies will have a choice to either comply with the regulations, or be forced out of business. They will choose to comply.

When the free and open internet is taken down, people will welcome it. Why? Because it will be preceeded by a cyber false flag that will threaten your ravaged bank accounts; and when that happens, the NWO masters expect you to get down on your knees and thank them for 'protecting' you from the big bad cyber attackers. They will not just turn off the internet.. they will leave you with a freshly scrubbed, sanitized-for-your-protection version of the internet where you'll still have the banking, myspace, amazon, porno sites, game sites; and other distractions to focus on while the rest of the constitution is thrown into the shredder.

There won't be a huge outcry because most people won't even notice.


"Net Neutrality" is a vaguely described 'idea' - the idea of freedom; equality of packets flowing at the same bitrates across the net - no packet left behind kind of thing.

It's been put in place to pacify us while the globalists continue to implement more changes to take control of information flow between people. This is a critical component of their strategy to reach a global government. If the switch from FCC to FTC is any indication, the commercialization of the internet will see Net Neutrality turned into the more accurate intent from the start: Net PAY-ME.


...  On a far less shocking and dramatic note, the latest FCC 3 to 2 vote on Thursday to “maintain net neutrality” has been treated in the press as a triumph for the people. Yet before we internet users celebrate, several keys factors still need to be pondered. We already know the overriding history in North America where giant transnational corporations enjoy more individual rights than us individuals in this age of globalism. The people may have averted a disastrous lost battle but the war of corporate greed winning out over the rights of people goes on. The FCC’s ruling declared that the internet falls under the rules and regulations of the telecommunications industry and we know what’s been happening there. Six corporate entities virtually control all the world’s major media outlets.

Secondly, the 300-page details of the FCC decision has yet to be released. Literally armies of telecom lawyers will be analyzing every line of 300 pages with a fine-tooth comb just searching for the myriad of potential loopholes by which the large corporate internet providers can find ways to squeeze additional money for the giants at our expense. Finally, the FCC has a special new rule called the “general conduct rule” whereby as in FCC Chairman Wheeler’s words, “it wants to referee” in getting to decide what it deems unfair or “hurts consumers, competition or innovation.” With such a vague and wide open birth, the FCC wields enormous power to interpret its 300 pages of new rules in what it considers running afoul of “proper conduct” and it may not be in favor of us internet consumers. Meanwhile, the telecom lawyers have unlimited time and money to finagle, lobby and court FCC’s favor, not unlike Big Business rules over the EPA in getting away with all kinds of unregulated pollution and Big Pharma literally owns the FDA.

Big Gov operates in deviously sneaky ways. It knows ruling against net neutrality now would cause a storm of fury in America that temporarily Washington is choosing at this moment to avoid. But as mentioned, the mountains of fine print perfectly suited for loopholes contained in 300 pages of rules can easily turn this ephemeral victory into another staggering long term defeat for the people. It’s simply akin to the hard kill being deferred to the soft kill strategy, quietly sneaking through little changes that in their totality will eventually peck away at net neutrality and ultimately kill it. We need to always remember that in recent years gov.corps is one entity that historically favors corporate greed and profit over the well-being of a bunch of humans. The power elite’s agenda remains to offer less internet services, less access to not only the internet but to particular websites that will come at higher prices to access in the future.

Indeed the growing threat of our tyrannical fascist government cutting off access to independent alternative news sites falling victim to state censorship is still very real and extremely foreboding. Increasingly the elite’s agenda is to disempower the global masses by keeping them ignorant, dumbed down and in the dark without any access to the truth. Taking away much of the World Wide Web is their sinister strategy that’s still operating at all times despite this recent decision.

The totalitarian government in Washington has realized that their propagandizing mainstream media machine has been rapidly losing its credibility and audience. Upwards of 4 out of 5 Americans today aren’t even tuning in to the likes of NBC’s Brian Williams’ fake show for MSM’s inaccurate reporting of the latest unfolding events in the globalized censored world. And that trend arrived long before we learned Williams turned out to be another mainstream liar.

The totalitarian government’s fusion into corporate fascism has long recognized that supplying the world with free internet allows the masses access to alternative independent news sites for far more accurate reporting of world news and developments. At increasing risk of censorship black outs and persecution, independent news strives to tell the truth to the rest of the world, exposing the official narrative of pure lies and evildoing perpetrated by the criminal syndicate acting as the rogue government. A continued free and independent internet news outlet making suppression of the truth difficult poses a real threat to fascism. That’s why free internet is still under attack.


The other reason the internet poses a threat to New World Order is its enormous capacity to provide instant global communication between billions of humans around the globe that together possess a potentially powerful resistance movement opposing the oppressive tactics being implemented by globalized multinational governments. Ultimately an awakened, informed and empowered citizenry of the world united in solidarity poses the biggest threat to global fascism and its New World Order. That’s why through Executive Order Obama has given himself supreme dictatorial authority to shut  down the internet in America under the pretense of a national emergency.


Note: My only objection to that is the last sentence, where the author states,
"That’s why through Executive Order Obama has given himself supreme dictatorial authority
to shut  down the internet in America under the pretense of a national emergency."

It wasn't "Obama" - it was CSIS.
Any policies enacted by presidents do NOT originate in the WH.
There is a much bigger machine orchestrating things - bigger than any sitting president - and part of the government the continues as presidents come and go.


-----------------------------------

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=137788.msg833522#msg833522
Quote
Others say the president should be able to take such action. James Lewis, senior fellow for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which last year issued a set of cybersecurity recommendations to Congress, likened the provision to President George W. Bush’s call to shut down airlines after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“It seems foolish not to have the same authority for cyberspace,” he said. “It’s not that the president will wake up in a bad mood one day and implode Yahoo. This would apply only to severe national emergencies. … This is a great opportunity to blast us into a new level of discussion about cybersecurity.”

So we have "fake news" hyped up in the media: problem-reaction-solution...
We also have the fear-mongering of Russian internet bots mind-controlling the entire population to elect Trump: problem-reaction-solution...
And we have the Guccifer2.0 fake Russian leaker meme:  problem-reaction-solution...

And now we have a lifting of privacy protections for internet users on behalf of the ISPs, who can sell the data.
And somehow this FCC regulation being lifted will 'help' transition to FTC?
And how is moving ISP business to the FTC a 'win' for the people?

That part is still a mystery to me.
Can anyone explain it?

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: TahoeBlue on April 02, 2017, 11:28:52 am
I would say that "the fix is in" ...

They've been gunning for this for years ... Will an infiltrated, weakened and surrounded Trump fail us? hmmm...
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Effie Trinket on April 02, 2017, 11:47:05 am
August 2009:

Jay Rockefeller-Evidence of Psychosis: I OWN THE INTERNET/OBAMA CAN PULL PLUG
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=129107.msg793115#msg793115

This is a bait and switch. In actuality they will use this to implement a fairness doctrine as well as other current limitations on physical free speech. BEWARE OF NET NEUTRALITY LAWS! THE NET SHOULD BE SELF GOVERNING IN THE SAME FASHION AS REAL FREE TRADE AND TRUE  UN-CORRUPTED CAPITALISM  -WOULD BE WITHOUT WORLD BANKERS OF THE NWO TRYING TO F*CK US ALL.

Other key points that they faill to mention. that local and federal tax dollars are paid to these telecom companies to establish and pay for these networks. These networks are then allocated even more tax dollars as part of federal projects that have to pay these same telecom monthly access fees and Bandwidth charges. (Talk about on f*cked paradox)

Then you as a consumer along with every other business pay even more money in monthly access charges and bandwidth fees on top of that equating to nothing but profits for companies like Verizon, Comcast and MA BELL ( AKA SBC/ATT  see: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/01/06/will-ma-bells-reassembly-result-in-the-bride-of-frankinstein/ and  http://techdirt.com/articles/20060306/0122246_F.shtml
This just keeps getting more evil by the LINE even!
This is an all out ploy to destroy the GPL and eliminate free software forever.
Let's read the GPL, PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF OPEN SOURCE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS! THE GPL IS A EULA and the primary one along with the BSD license that pioneered the very basis of the aforementioned statement that reads

" Some EULAs go so far as to claim ownership of any work product created with their software." for the very reason that it is the ONLY way to insure that GPL code remain GPL , OPEN SOURCE AND FREE TO THE PUBLIC! In fact the GPL goes as far as to say that all one has to do is change 51% of the EXISTING CODE TO BE CONSIDERED A NEW PIECE OF SOFTWARE AND THEREFORE BELONGING TO THE AUTHOR! So, it is self regulating even!As are most freeware and open sources licenses...
NWO to execute CYBER FALSE FLAGS for Trump's MANUFACTURED CRISIS Presidency
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=173672.msg1032714#msg1032714
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 12:15:51 pm
The interesting thing about this whole debate is that the Obama rule was not set to go into effect until end of 2017.

Also, there really is no privacy on the net and your rights are violated daily by the big shots (Google, Facebook, etc ) who dont operate by any rules. You sign away your rights as soon as you start a Facebook pg.

Censorship of youtube videos happen daily if you have the "wrong" view.

Alternative sites are called rogue and you get warnings when you go to such sites.

On and on the control continues, and is getting worse.

One concern i have is Trump is not computer / internet savvy and is depending on his cabinet and other "experts". However, I think he means well.

The Fcc and Ftc need to get their act together and stop squabbling. Do their jobs.

The more i look at this, it is looking more and more like another distraction. No matter what the Ftc Fcc do, the big boys will do as they please and continue getting into your privacy. Until the globalists are dealt with, that invasion of privacy will not stop. It will get worse.

Bottom line: We must demand a free and open internet like it once was, and nothing less is acceptable.






Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 12:27:47 pm
August 2009:

Jay Rockefeller-Evidence of Psychosis: I OWN THE INTERNET/OBAMA CAN PULL PLUG


He also said:

Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9xzXUQLuY
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 02:04:12 pm
Another excellent, common sense view! Shows the hypocrisy! Please watch!

All of a Sudden the Left is Concerned about Internet Privacy - YouTube

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2pUAmfw-Rk0
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 02:47:35 pm
Rand Paul: I Fear The Government Getting It's Clutches On The Internet - YouTube (This is why he supported the repeal)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FA6RhuQ_HGs
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 03:32:42 pm
House Votes Tuesday to Restore Consistent Online Privacy Regulation

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/28/house-votes-tuesday-to-restore-consistent-online-privacy-regulation/

http://techfreedom.org/archive

Quote
TechFreedom president Berin Szoka argued, “The FCC’s rules were unwise and unnecessary. The FCC will soon return broadband privacy policing to the Federal Trade Commission, where it belongs, like all online privacy. In the meantime, enacting this CRA will simply mean that the FCC will police broadband  privacy case-by-case — just as it had done under Democratic leadership after the FCC’s 2015 Open Internet Order deprived the FTC of its consumer protection power over broadband by reclassifying broadband as a common carrier service.”

Consumers Deserve Consistent Online Privacy Protection
https://techpolicycorner.org/consumers-deserve-consistent-online-privacy-protection-9368eb3696ae
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 03:59:01 pm
Tech faces public anger over internet privacy repeal (So what will big tech do to comfort the consumer? )

http://thehill.com/policy/technology/326816-tech-faces-public-anger-over-internet-privacy-repeal

Quote
The Republican push to eliminate Obama-era consumer data protections is sparking a new national debate over online privacy, and putting internet companies on the defensive.

The measure blocking the online privacy rules is on the desk of President Trump, who is expected to sign it.

But the firestorm of controversy shows no signs of easing. Broadband titans such as AT&T and Comcast and web giants like Google and Facebook now find themselves under growing pressure over their privacy policies.
---
“There has been a lot of misleading talk about how the congressional action this week to overturn the regulatory overreach of the prior FCC will now permit us to sell sensitive customer data without customers’ knowledge or consent. This is just not true,” wrote Gerard Lewis, Comcast senior vice president.

Despite the public furor, for now, companies are trying to reassure the public that little will change on the privacy front.

U.S. Telecom, a trade industry group, in a statement encouraging Trump to sign the repeal measure said "customers can rest easy" in a statement Tuesday, saying there were already other rules in place "to keep consumers' data safe."
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 02, 2017, 04:21:22 pm
Key point to remember:

Obamas regulation wasn't set to kickin until Dec 2017, so technically nothing is changing with the repeal. This is why some feel the media is lying. They are hyperventilating to get people upset! Its what the media does best!

Also, if you are on a computer, or use a cellphone, you know there is really no privacy with or without Obamas FCC reg. If you have a Facebook page, the day you set it up, you gave up your privacy as far as Facebook is concerned. Are you upset about that?

Have you even read the privacy policy of all the places you go on the internet? For your ISP? Etc?

How many Apps do you have? What do you think happens when you click OK to download that free app?

What about all the surveillance the govt is involved in? Why does the media support and defend that? They dont hyperventilate about that.

Patriot Act? Do you not think that encroaches on your privacy? Oh but that has been forgotten due to all the other distractions.

You see. There is major hypocrisy on this issue.

THE OBAMA REG REPEAL IS THE LEAST OF YOUR WORRIES. IT WASNT EVEN IN FORCE YET. YOU ARE LOSING YOUR PRIVACY ON MANY FRONTS BECAUSE YOU LET WASHINGTON TAKE IT OVER MANY DECADES. DEMS AND REPUBS ARE BOTH GUILTY.

SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?





Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 03, 2017, 06:09:03 am
Hang on a minute, take a pause.

Take time to read all of this, because I can see a lot of people simply don't know things.




Question :  Is Net Neutrality Good or Bad ?

Answer : Net Neutrality IS the Internet.

Before the Internet we had various private networks that was not necessarily connected. It seemed pretty obvious at the time, that if these networks could come to an agreement, then these networks could connect to each other, building a much bigger network, with much more content. It was suggested at the time that maybe people should pay to visit these other 'foreign' networks. Indeed, many initial bridges between networks started as pay-as-you-go arrangements. When they did the accounts, they kept finding that when networks joined the bill was pretty much 50/50 and the accounting was problematic at best and easily more trouble than it was worth.

Luckily for us, the big players realised that the best thing to do was call a Truce, and agree by Treaty to share and connect equally and fairly. That the benefits of working together to share, out weighed all other considerations.

That is the Internet.

It is a collection of Networks that are inter-connected without prejudice.



Question : Is Internet-2 Net Neutrality ?

Answer : You can not implement Internet-2 because it violates the principle of Net Neutrality which created the Internet in the first place.



Question : What is needed for Internet-2 ?

Answer :  A majority of Turkeys to Vote for Xmas

I will give one example, that is not true, just for illustrative purposes. Tell them its Racist. Ok, now that you stopped laughing, just remember that any issue that can be cloaked in obfuscation can be described to a voting block in simplistic terms with the appropriate Trigger word.  Yup, tell a large herd of Obama Bots that some how net neutrality is racist, as it enforces and supports white privilege... Ok, your still laughing at the Obama Bots. Well, who wants miserable posts on a Monday. Feel free to laugh.

Now for the not so funny answer, just tell them that net neutrality is egalitarian socialism, that its cover and code words for a UN take over, that it is (add other Trigger KeyWords as required such as Obama .....) etc . . .


Conclusion

You should realise that net neutrality and the internet are identical, what you do with that information is up to you.

What you should not do is treat this a some kind of Republicans versus Democrats as some issues are much bigger than mere party politics.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 03, 2017, 11:11:12 am

Eg,

I dont have a problem with you having a dif viewpoint. Start your own thread on that topic if you feel that strongly about it, and wish to share it.

If you would handle this better, you could educate people. I see this issue as multi faceted and an incremental attack on the free internet over several presidencys'. You are talking about only one aspect which doesnt show the whole incremental picture.

Thus, there are things we are both right about, but talking on two different levels (yours is more technical) mine is a full picture view that involves decades of actions the globalist have engaged in to eventually control the internet sometimes using regulations. Trump is rolling back these regs, etc, to interrupt this incremental globalist attack on the net. Imo

I appreciate your computer knowledge, EG, but im asking you to appreciate my full picture view that comes from decades of research. Thank you!
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 03, 2017, 11:51:53 am
Trump’s new FCC chief is Ajit Pai, and he wants to destroy net neutrality
http://www.theverge.com/2017/1/23/14338522/fcc-chairman-ajit-pai-donald-trump-appointment

So is this a good or bad - that he wants to dismantle Net Neutrality ?
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 03, 2017, 12:18:41 pm
So is this a good or bad - that he wants to dismantle Net Neutrality ?

There are different views on Net Neutrality. Here's another view:

Why You Should Demand 'Net Morality' Instead of 'Net Neutrality'

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20160405_why_you_should_demand_net_morality_instead_of_net_neutrality/

http://www.martingeddes.com/1261-2/

Quote
I would like to offer you an alternative framing to "net neutrality", that of "net morality". This places the focus back where it belongs: on people, instead of on packets. This framing will, I hope, convince some of you who are of good conscience to consider actively resisting the inevitable mounting harm that technically naïve "net neutrality" policies will inflict upon the public.


It's very common in US politics for Congressmen (really think tanks, etc write bills and have some manipulated goon pass it) to write bills that imply one thing in their titles but very different in content that is manipulative. One Ex: The Patriot Act (there is nothing patriotic about the patriot act, it takes freedoms).

Thus, how can anyone trust any bill, when this manipulation is going on and where they change the text of bills in the middle of the night and then ram them through.

This is another example of OTHER THINGS GOING ON WITH THESE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS going through the US Congress.

Just the fact that Obama rammed this secretive bill through the last days of his presidency should be enough for people to see a problem! He did this with other legislation also that is highly suspicious and inappropriate for a President to do his last months in office. I see an agenda behind these highly unprofessional moves, and so do others.

So, EG, we are talking apples and oranges.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Satyagraha on April 03, 2017, 12:28:36 pm
So is this a good or bad - that he wants to dismantle Net Neutrality ?

So EG, do you think net neutrality is a good thing?
I think it's a vague and obsure promise that has not, can not, and will never materialize.
At the core, net neutrality was supposed to guarantee all 'packets' of information would be delivered to internet users equitably... no preference for a (example) CNN packet vs. an Infowars packet.

From the article you linked, "Pai has long been critical of net neutrality, saying that the problem it’s trying to solve — big internet providers acting as gatekeepers to what we see and do online — doesn’t exist. He recently reiterated a prediction that the commission’s Open Internet Order, which established net neutrality, would be reversed or overturned in one way or another. He’ll now have the chance to play a role in that.

We know that was BS.
Because the idea of net neutrality was great - but the bottom line is that Comcast (for example) controls whatever info goes down the pipe to users at their computers, or on their tv, or landline phones. So the 'gatekeeper' is there, and we have to trust they will not censor the packets (the promise of net neutrality).

I think the MUCH LARGER issue is the transfer of regulating ISPs from the FCC to the FTC.
We were supposed to be protected from having our individual user data SOLD by the ISPs, and lifting the regulation at the FCC allows them to do that. They can sell our data. Today.

So... I don't understand how the ISPs will be 'moved' under the FTC,
nor do I understand how the FTC will protect user data privacy.

The larger issue - privacy  - is getting buried (covered up ) by the "net neutrality" narrative.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: swimreferee on April 03, 2017, 12:48:23 pm
There are different views on Net Neutrality. Here's another view:

Why You Should Demand 'Net Morality' Instead of 'Net Neutrality'


Agreed but perhaps we should go a little bit further.  We should install the Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Practices_for_Television_Broadcasters (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Practices_for_Television_Broadcasters)

The Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters, also known as the Television Code, was a set of ethical standards adopted by the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) for television. The code was established on December 6, 1951. Compliance with the code was indicated by the "Seal of Good Practice", displayed during closing credits on most United States television programs, and on some US TV station sign-on and sign-offs from 1952 through the early 1980s.

The code prohibited the use of profanity, the negative portrayal of family life, irreverence for God and religion, illicit sex, drunkenness and addiction, presentation of cruelty, detailed techniques of crime, the use of horror for its own sake, and the negative portrayal of law enforcement officials, among others. The code regulated how performers should dress and move to be within the "bounds of decency". Further, news reporting was to be "factual, fair and without bias" and commentary and analysis should be "clearly defined as such". Broadcasters were to make time available for religious broadcasting and were discouraged from charging religious bodies for access. Most importantly, it limited the commercial minutes per hour.[1]

In the wake of a settlement with the Justice Department, the code was suspended in 1983.[2][3][4]

A scholarly discussion titled "Self-Regulation and the Media" by Angela J. Campbell, (1999) examines media self-regulation and concludes that "Applying these five factors to digital television public interest responsibilities and privacy on the Internet, it concludes that self-regulation is not likely to be successful in these contexts." This is a well-documented report.[5]
Title: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 03, 2017, 12:52:05 pm
The larger issue - privacy  - is getting buried (covered up ) by the "net neutrality" narrative.

Exactly, I thought if I explained Net Neutrality it might kinda wake people up to what is hoax and what is real.

Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 03, 2017, 01:09:28 pm
So EG, do you think net neutrality is a good thing?

If you want Internet-2, then Net Neutrality must be deleted.



I think it's a vague and obsure promise that has not, can not, and will never materialize.
At the core, net neutrality was supposed to guarantee all 'packets' of information would be delivered to internet users equitably... no preference for a (example) CNN packet vs. an Infowars packet.

To cut through the BS, the ISPs subscribe to many customers to small an internet pipe.
Guess what, instead of admitting they play the blame game and other sneak tricks.
I know its being broken by ISPs doing such things under  the guise of "Traffic Management".
BUT at least they have to lie about it because its illegal, and that kinda keeps them under some sort of control.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Satyagraha on April 03, 2017, 02:48:24 pm
If you want Internet-2, then Net Neutrality must be deleted.



To cut through the BS, the ISPs subscribe to many customers to small an internet pipe.
Guess what, instead of admitting they play the blame game and other sneak tricks.
I know its being broken by ISPs doing such things under  the guise of "Traffic Management".
BUT at least they have to lie about it because its illegal, and that kinda keeps them under some sort of control.

Yes, they have to pretend to enforce Net Neutrality (and complain of 'traffic management' problems) to maintain the farce.

But I think the larger issue is about privacy. We know (from Snowden) that it's all about data collection, all about building profiles (dossiers) on everyone on the planet - depositing it in the giant database in Utah.

Hang on a minute, take a pause.

Take time to read all of this, because I can see a lot of people simply don't know things.

So the idea of Net Neutrality was a beautiful thing. It really was. But did we actually expect it to be really equitable distribution of packets of information across this vast internet we have?  I think it's useful to go back and look at a little history...

The idea of the global interconnected network was first proposed (http://www.internetsociety.org/internet/what-internet/history-internet/brief-history-internet) by a guy at MIT, who then went on to work at DARPA - in 1962!
The work done at DARPA was the birth of "ARPANET."

Quote
In late 1966 Roberts went to DARPA to develop the computer network concept and quickly put together his plan for the "ARPANET", publishing it in 1967. At the conference where he presented the paper, there was also a paper on a packet network concept from the UK by Donald Davies and Roger Scantlebury of NPL. Scantlebury told Roberts about the NPL work as well as that of Paul Baran and others at RAND. The RAND group had written a paper on packet switching networks for secure voice in the military in 1964. It happened that the work at MIT (1961-1967), at RAND (1962-1965), and at NPL (1964-1967) had all proceeded in parallel without any of the researchers knowing about the other work. The word "packet" was adopted from the work at NPL and the proposed line speed to be used in the ARPANET design was upgraded from 2.4 kbps to 50 kbps.

So we know the internet was developed and paid for by the military (DARPA), in conjunction with our pals from the UK. It was funded and controlled by the folks at DARPA (e.g., the MIC) and RAND.

So why is this important to remember....
- it's about how information flows across the interconnected networks
- who gets to control WHAT information gets passed along?
- who controls the RATE (speed) at which information gets passed?


So the idea of net neutrality is excellent - equal opportunity for everyone to communicate via the internet.
But the fact that it was developed by the MIC, in conjunction with brainy folks at MIT and elsewhere, means we have to remember that they don't develop and then open this vast network to the general population without having some GOOD REASONS to do so:

The Internet is a Surveillance Tool

At one time, back in the 90s, we had AOL and Myspace applications that served as the "internet" for millions of users. But those were contained environments, with walls around the application, allowing only 'approved' content. There was no browser to take users out to the unedited internet. And they collected data on user habits; they tracked it to "see what users are interested in for marketing purposes," but in fact, it was user data that could be put to ANY use, including intelligence.

Then, in the late 90s, these contained apps opened up to integrate web browsers. All of a sudden, millions of users now had access to content that wasn't 'controlled' by the gatekeepers. But there were new gatekeepers (really, new observers and collectors of data.)

The formerly 'contained' environments have been replaced with social networks like Facebook, Twitter, and search tools like Google... notice anything?

All controlled and monitored by the intelligence arm of the MIC.

Add the NSA revelations from Snowden (all data is collected in a giant database in Utah)...
And add Palantir as the app to manage all that data, and create user profiles based on internet searches, facebook friends, etc.

As for the lifting of the rule prohibiting selling user data by ISPs... they just want to recoup their loss when the internet became the major source of information sharing, replacing the network news shows, which are now just propaganda engines. People moved away to get and share info on the internet, some actually don't even subscribe to the cable world, preferring content from the internet.

Where does the FTC come in on this?
Federat TRADE Commission... charging users to access information in "packages" like cable bundles (Get basic, expanded, HBO, and for a few more dollars, sports channels... etc.)
The bundles are pre-determined.

So if they employ that business model (worked before, it will work again), what's to prevent them from making bundled packages for access... (get MSNBC, Fox, CBS, etc.) and for a few extra dollars...

Lifting the rule was WRONG, because our ISPs are under FCC ruling now.
Moving the ISPs to come under the FTC is an unknown.

The Internet 2 is coming - it's a globalist agenda item. We'll have to see how the Trump administration handles this.

The conference is in April in Washington DC:


Here's one planned for  04/26/17 03:00PM-04:00PM:
Digital Collaboration in Science Requires New Approaches to Handling Data and Identity
https://meetings.internet2.edu/2017-global-summit/detail/10004565/

SESSION ABSTRACT

Best practices, regulation, and the nature of Big Data require that science data sharing platforms incorporate information about data origin and ownership. However, little attention has been granted to the real and large problems of identity, ownership, and provenance, especially in international biomedical research.

The traditional IT approach of building "science DMZs" and networked systems that support higher data throughput and greater computing performance can no longer realistically keep up with trends in data growth. Innovative international research may have multiple regulatory barriers to the transfer of data across national boundaries. These realities drive the paradigm shift of relocating the compute tools with the data, which also facilitates transnational collaborations in human biomedical research.

Collaborative platforms that integrate institutional identity as well as individual identity will have more complete compliance with guidelines for human subject research. Using institutional identities for researchers who provide and use data sharing platforms for collaboration also builds trust in those platforms. Trust federations like InCommon and federations-of-federations like eduGAIN provide a framework for institutional and individual identity that can promote researcher's trust in data and computational tool sharing. This presentation reviews the integration of identity federations into the data sharing and computational bioscience environment for international research at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).

SPEAKER Michael Tartakovsky National Institutes of Health/National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 04, 2017, 07:22:46 am

But I think the larger issue is about privacy.
We know (from Snowden) that it's all about data collection,
all about building profiles (dossiers) on everyone on the planet
 - depositing it in the giant database in Utah.


It is all about Privacy . . .

It has nothing what so ever to do with Party Politics and everything to do with Swamp Creature Ajit Pai Chairman of FCC

Ajit Pai was appointed by Obama
Ajit Pai continues under Trump


Spot the contradiction proving he is Internet-2 Agent :

(A) Think about it, one minute he is so right wing he thinks privacy laws are obstructing profits for corps
(B) He wants a socialist internet tax subsidy for poor families broadband.

It only makes sense when you realise that an Internet-2 Spygrid must include the Poor Folks.
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trump Advisers plan
Post by: EvadingGrid on April 04, 2017, 07:53:47 am
Please Leave Trump Alone ?
Does anyone really, really, think that these ideas came from Trump ?
Can anyone imagine a Trump Rally and The Donald saying we are going to sell your privacy to boost the economy ? ?

It is my opinion that it is insane to drag Trump into all of this, and that swamp creature adviser manipulators are simply trying to "cash in" on Trumps good name and trust of his supporters.
Which I find utterly despicable . . . .
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: Adolf Hilter on April 14, 2017, 12:04:25 pm
trump dont care about your privacy, he cares about his
https://www.rt.com/op-edge/384765-wikileaks-snowden-pompeo-cia/
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: jofortruth on April 17, 2017, 12:49:03 pm
SOROS, GOOGLE FUNDING “NET NEUTRALITY” GROUPS TO CONTROL INTERNET, CENSOR INFOWARS.COM $72 million spent since 2006 to control Internet under guise of "net neutrality"
https://www.infowars.com/soros-google-funding-net-neutrality-groups-to-control-internet-censor-infowars-com/
Title: Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
Post by: beardogg0524 on April 18, 2017, 11:48:35 am
Soros and Google have turned "net neutrality" into a false flag astroturf movement.
Title: Re: If net neutrality disappears...
Post by: TahoeBlue on November 22, 2017, 11:40:09 am
bump for fcc net neutrality kill joys ...

see:

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

This is your last chance to stop ISPs from messing up your Internet.

The FCC just announced its plan to slash net neutrality rules, allowing ISPs like Verizon to block apps, slow websites, and charge fees to control what you see & do online. They vote December 14th. But if Congress gets enough calls, *they* can stop the FCC.



Want to do more? Attend a protest!

The new chairman of the FCC was a top lawyer at Verizon. And now he's calling for a vote to kill net neutrality, as a gift to his former employer. So on December 7th we’re protesting outside Verizon retail stores across the U.S. to demand that Congress stop the FCC from destroying the Internet as we know it. Attend a protest near you.
Who's driving the most calls
Total Calls

428,462
This week

222,906
Today

184,188


....


What is net neutrality? Why does it matter?

Net neutrality is the principle that Internet providers like Comcast & Verizon should not control what we see and do online. In 2015, startups, Internet freedom groups, and 3.7 million commenters won strong net neutrality rules from the US Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The rules prohibit Internet providers from blocking, throttling, and paid prioritization—"fast lanes" for sites that pay, and slow lanes for everyone else.
We are Team Internet. We support net neutrality, freedom of speech.

Nearly everyone who understands and depends on the Internet supports net neutrality, whether they're startup founders, activists, gamers, politicians, investors, comedians, YouTube stars, or typical Internet users who just want their Internet to work as advertised—regardless of their political party. But don't take our word for it. Ask around, or watch some of these videos.



| - - - -

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/21/technology/fcc-net-neutrality.html

F.C.C. Plans Net Neutrality Repeal in a Victory for Telecoms
By CECILIA KANG
NOV. 21, 2017

The Federal Communications Commission released a plan on Tuesday to dismantle landmark regulations that ensure equal access to the internet, clearing the way for internet service companies to charge users more to see certain content and to curb access to some websites.

The proposal, made by the F.C.C. chairman, Ajit Pai, is a sweeping repeal of rules put in place by the Obama administration. The rules prohibit high-speed internet service providers, or I.S.P.s, from stopping or slowing down the delivery of websites. They also prevent the companies from charging customers extra fees for high-quality streaming and other services.

The announcement set off a fight over free speech and the control of the internet, pitting telecom titans like AT&T and Verizon against internet giants like Google and Amazon. The internet companies warned that rolling back the rules could make the telecom companies powerful gatekeepers to information and entertainment. The telecom companies say that the existing rules prevent them from offering customers a wider selection of services at higher and lower price points.

“Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet,” Mr. Pai said in a statement. “Instead, the F.C.C. would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that’s best for them.”

Mr. Pai, a Republican who has pursued an aggressive deregulation agenda, was widely expected to have his plan approved during a meeting on Dec. 14. The two other Republicans on the commission generally vote with Mr. Pai, giving them a majority over the two Democrats.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
    Ajit Pai: Media Ownership Rules Must Adjust to the Digital Era NOV. 9, 2017
    Opinion Op-Ed Contributor
    Net Neutrality: Why Artists and Activists Can’t Afford to Lose It OCT. 31, 2017
    Opinion Op-Docs
    ‘A Threat to Internet Freedom’ JULY 9, 2014

Recent Comments
LF 13 minutes ago

I am a cord-cutter. I’ve escaped the clutches of DirecTV and their increasingly scandalous rates by switching to a streaming service. My...
Barbara 16 minutes ago

We need a young entrepreneur, like those who began Google, to find a way to over ride this and privately insure Net Neutrality. I would...
Jennifer Schultz 16 minutes ago

So, what’s this I hear about this morning...that a state attorney general claims the FCC link allowing comments on net neutrality was...

    See All Comments Write a comment

Telecom and internet companies are expected to lobby hard in Washington — and directly to the public — as they did when the current rules were adopted.

Some internet companies were expected to put up a fight to prevent the proposal from taking hold. The Internet Association, an industry group, joined a legal effort in 2015 to protect the existing rules. The agency has already received 20 million public comments, many of them in opposition of changing the rules, since Mr. Pai announced the broad outlines of his thinking early this year.

The big companies that provide internet access to phones and computers have fought for years against broadband regulations. Under the new plan, broadband providers will be able to block access, slow down or speed up service for its business partners in some cases — as long as they notify customers.

“This action will return broadband in the U.S. to a regulatory regime that emphasizes private investment and innovation over lumbering government intervention,” said Joan Marsh, a vice president at AT&T.

Big online companies like Google and Facebook say the repeal proposal would allow telecom companies to play favorites by charging customers for accessing some sites or by slowing speeds to others. The existing rules were written to prevent such arrangements, adopting a policy often called net neutrality.

“We are disappointed that the proposal announced today by the F.C.C. fails to maintain the strong net neutrality protections that will ensure the internet remains open for everyone,” Erin Egan, a vice president at Facebook, said in a statement. “We will work with all stakeholders committed to this principle.”

Small online companies believe the proposal would hurt innovation, because telecom companies could force them to pay more for the faster connections. Only the largest companies, they say, would be able to afford the expense of making sure their sites received preferred treatment. Companies like Etsy and Pinterest, for example, credit their start to the promise of free and open access on the internet.

And consumers, the online companies say, may see their costs go up if, for example, they want high-quality access to popular websites like Netflix, a company that depends on fast connections for its streaming videos. Netflix said on Tuesday that it opposed Mr. Pai’s proposal.

The action “represents the end of net neutrality as we know it and defies the will of millions of Americans,” said Michael Beckerman, chief executive of the Internet Association, a lobbying group that represents Google, Facebook, Amazon and other tech companies.

...

The plan to repeal the existing rules, passed in 2015, would reverse a hallmark decision by the agency to consider broadband a public utility, as essential as phones and electricity. The earlier decision created the legal foundation for the current rules and underscored the importance of high-speed internet service. It was put in place by Tom Wheeler, an F.C.C. chairman under President Obama.

...

 On Tuesday, in addition to the net neutrality rollback, Mr. Pai announced a plan to eliminate a rule limiting any corporation from controlling broadcasts that can reach more than 39 percent of American homes.

The fight over net neutrality could end up being one of his biggest and most fraught decisions. For more than a decade, the agency has struggled with how to regulate internet service, leading to extended legal battles. The rules adopted under Mr. Wheeler were upheld in 2016 by a federal appeals court in Washington.

The proposal released on Tuesday will probably make its way to court as well. And companies like Google and Facebook are expected to push the public to speak out against the plan. They coordinated a huge online protest against the possible changes in July.

Some of the lobbying could take place in Congress, even though it may change little because Republicans control both houses. Nevertheless, Democrats have vowed to try to reconstruct the strict rules adopted by the F.C.C. in 2015.
The next three weeks promise to hold intense lobbying from both sides, but that might not be the end of it. The regulation of internet providers has already swung once on a change in the Oval Office.

...

“As good as the F.C.C.’s action is for I.S.P.s, it only assures nonregulation of broadband through 2020,” said Paul Gallant, an analyst at the research firm Cowen.
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: TahoeBlue on November 22, 2017, 12:14:21 pm
http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/21/ajit-pai-net-neutrality-podcast
FCC Head Ajit Pai: Killing Net Neutrality Will Set the Internet Free
Promises that "we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity" like never before.

Nick Gillespie, Ian Keyser & Jim Epstein|
Nov. 21, 2017 5:40 pm

In an exclusive interview today just hours after announcing his plan to repeal "Net Neutrality" rules governing the actions of Internet-service providers (ISPs) and mobile carriers, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai has an in-your-face prediction for his critics: "Over the coming years, we're going to see an explosion in the kinds of connectivity and the depth of that connectivity," he said this afternoon. "Ultimately that means that the human capital in the United States that's currently on the shelf—the people who don't have digital opportunity—will become participants in the digital economy."

Pai stressed that regulating the Internet under a Title II framework originally created in the 1930s had led to less investment in infrastructure and a slower rate of innovation.

"Since the dawn of the commercial internet, ISPs have been investing as much as they can in networks in order to upgrade their facilities and to compete with each other," he says. "Outside of a recession we've never seen that sort of investment go down year over year. But we did in 2015, after these regulations were adopted."

 In a Wall Street Journal column published today, Pai says Title II was responsible for a nearly 6 percent decline in broadband network investment as ISPs saw compliance costs rise and the regulatory atmosphere become uncertain. In his interview with Reason, Pai stressed that the real losers under Net Neutrality were people living in rural areas and low-income Americans who were stuck on the bad end of "the digital divide."

Proponents of Net Neutrality maintain that rules that went into effect in 2015 are the only thing standing between rapacious businesses such as Comcast, Verizon (where Pai once worked), and Spectrum and an Internet choking on throttled traffic, expensive "fast lanes," and completely blocked sites that displease whatever corporate entity controls the last mile of fiber into your home or business.

Pai says that is bunk and noted that today's proposed changes, which are expected to pass full FCC review in mid-December, return the Internet to the light-touch regulatory regime that governed it from the mid-1990s until 2015.
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: EvadingGrid on November 22, 2017, 07:10:57 pm
In order to roll out Internet2.....
Net Neutrality has to be destroyed.
Simplez.

Remember with Internet2, you pay extra to go on the corporate network, while the old internet is left to degrade. You can not have Net Neutrality and a Fast Lane.

Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on November 28, 2017, 02:32:12 pm
PAI HAS VOTES NEEDED TO REPEAL OBAMA-ERA “NET NEUTRALITY” RULES

https://www.infowars.com/pai-has-votes-needed-to-repeal-obama-era-net-neutrality-rules/
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: TahoeBlue on November 28, 2017, 02:40:59 pm
what is amazing is we really have no idea what these "rules" are.  1984 we have arrived ,,.

for or against?


 

Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on November 28, 2017, 03:37:28 pm
Net neutrality repeal means your internet may never be the same
https://www.cnet.com/news/net-neutrality-fcc-2017-repeal-what-it-means/

Pai Proposal - FCC Fact Sheet
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2017/db1122/DOC-347927A1.pdf



Will there be unintended consequences?
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on November 28, 2017, 04:08:47 pm
Net Neutrality 101: Why 'Title II' Doesn't Apply to Internet Transmissions

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20171030_netneutrality_title_ii_does_not_apply_to_internet_transmissions/

Quote
Title II is wholly unsuited to this task, because it doesn't apply to Silicon Valley companies that control access to many of the internet's core functionalities.

Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on November 28, 2017, 04:28:10 pm
The Truth About Net Neutrality - Stefan Molyneux
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z_nBhfpmk4
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on November 28, 2017, 06:53:00 pm
US regulator says Silicon Valley is threat to internet

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-regulator-says-silicon-valley-threat-internet-213205410.html
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on November 29, 2017, 04:46:31 pm
FCC CHIEF: WEB GIANTS FIGHTING 'NEUTRALITY' CHANGES TO 'CEMENT THEIR DOMINANCE' - 'Let's not kid ourselves. When it comes to an open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem'

http://www.wnd.com/2017/11/fcc-chief-web-giants-fighting-neutrality-changes-to-cement-their-dominance/


Quote
The FCC chairman then noted that Twitter is censoring and discriminating against conservatives, referencing when the social media platform prohibited Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., from promoting a campaign tweet that expressed her opposition to abortion.

“Now look: I love Twitter, and I use it all the time. But let’s not kid ourselves; when it comes to an open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” he said. “The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.”
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: EvadingGrid on November 29, 2017, 07:24:16 pm
Twitter is not an ISP, nor is it one of the backbone network companies.
Seems some people still don't comprehend the difference between travelling and arriving.
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on November 30, 2017, 02:55:33 pm
Jeffrey Tucker Bids Farewell to Net Neutrality (He is not a Trump fan but says Trump is doing the right thing on getting rid of Obama’s deceptive net neutrality)

https://www.corbettreport.com/interview-1327-jeffrey-tucker-bids-farewell-to-net-neutrality/
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: TahoeBlue on November 30, 2017, 04:51:55 pm
Twitter is not an ISP, nor is it one of the backbone network companies.
Seems some people still don't comprehend the difference between travelling and arriving.

lets see ... carrier and content ... no conflict there ...  and it really doesn't matter because these big jokers are making deals between themselves ... suddenlink comcast qualcom  att ... google amazon apple netflix twitter faceplant ... nothing to see here ...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/13/trumps-administration-is-right-to-block-the-att-and-time-warner-merger/
Department of Justice announced it would seek to block a merger between AT&T and Time Warner
...
In October 2016, the announcement that AT&T wanted to buy Time Warner helped bring some unity to a deeply divisive presidential race. The $85 billion deal aimed to combine the biggest telecom company in the country with some of the nation’s top news and entertainment producers, including HBO, TNT and CNN. Faced with the prospect of a media and data behemoth with unprecedented power over vital information, both the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees were skeptical of the deal.

Candidate Donald Trump vowed to block the merger if elected. “It’s too much power in the hands of too few,” he said. H
Title: Re: FCC To Introduce Net Neutrality Rule
Post by: jofortruth on May 16, 2018, 04:31:25 pm
Democratic Control: Senate Passes Resolution to Restore Net Neutrality
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/05/16/democratic-control-senate-passes-resolution-to-restore-net-neutrality/

Quote
FreedomWorks Director of Policy Patrick Hedger wrote last week regarding the Senate Democrat CRA, “Senator Markey knows this CRA effort is nothing more than a show-vote during an election year. Even if it passes the Senate, it will not pass the House, and stands zero chance of passing President Trump’s desk.

-

Phil Kerpen, the president of the conservative American Commitment, argued in an exclusive statement to Breitbart News that net neutrality serves as a significant carveout for Google and Facebook and will only diminish the freedom of the Internet.

Kerpen told Breitbart News:

Senate Democrats have lined up in lockstep with the vision outlined by avowed Marxist Robert McChesney, whose group was cited 47 times in the Obama public utility Internet order: “The ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

They want to replace the wildly successful competitive, free-market approach that made the Internet with the public utility model that had municipal water, sewer, and transportation systems in a state of perpetual neglect – but to give a free ride to their friends at Google and Facebook that were completely carved out of the Obama rules. This political stunt vote will in the Senate will not result in any House action, and even if it somehow did would be stopped by a presidential veto.

Kerpen added, “So it’s really about political messaging – and the message is Democrats want a government controlled, heavily taxed Internet. Voters should pay attention.”