I have written before of the effort to bring "open access to all" on the internet. These attempts are nothing more than a not so cleverly disguised effort to clamp down on the free exchange available on the web today.
The idea has been to demonize "Big, Bad, Greedy Evil Corporate America" through statements like this one:
"At a time of corporate dominated media, a free and open Internet is democracy’s last chance to preserve our First Amendment rights without which all others are threatened. Activists call it Net Neutrality. Media scholar Robert McChesney says without it “the Internet would start to look like cable TV (with a) handful of massive companies (controlling) content” enough to have veto power over what’s allowed and what it costs. Progressive web sites and writers would be marginalized or suppressed, and content systematically filtered or banned."
It would appear that the campaign has reached a point that the guerilla's are now deciding to fight face to face.
FCC asked to monitor "hate speech," "misinformation" online
Over thirty organizations want the Federal Communications Commission to open up a probe on "hate speech" and "misinformation" in media. "Hate has developed as a profit-model for syndicated radio and cable television programs masquerading as 'news'," they wrote to the FCC earlier this month.
As for the Internet, it "gives the illusion that news sources have increased, but in fact there are fewer journalists employed now than before," they charge. "Moreover, on the Internet, speakers can hide in the cloak of anonymity, emboldened to say things that they may not say in the public eye."
The groups who want this new proceeding include Free Press, the Media Access Project, Common Cause, the Prometheus Radio Project, and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Their statement, filed in the Commission's Future of Media proceeding, comes in support of a petition to the agency submitted over a year ago by the National Hispanic Media Coalition.
I guess if you lack the intelligence to argue a point, you can always attempt to shut down those you disagree with. But, wouldn't it be more productive to learn the new medium, and use it effectively to communicate your own point of view, that is, provided you are the type that doesn't have to be told what to think.
President Barack Obama once again seemed to be setting up for a future challenge Sunday when he lamented the many sources American's have to check up on our elected officials.
"You're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank all that high on the truth meter," Obama said at Hampton University, Virginia.
That's right. Your President wants to limit your choices in where you get your information, too!
"What Jefferson recognized... that in the long run, their improbable experiment -- called America -- wouldn't work if its citizens were uninformed, if its citizens were apathetic, if its citizens checked out, and left democracy to those who didn't have the best interests of all the people at heart," he said.
"It could only work if each of us stayed informed and engaged, if we held our government accountable, if we fulfilled the obligations of citizenship."
The problem is, he wants to decide for you what information is and is not worth your time. He may as well be saying, "Citizens are much easier to control when they lack the ability to check up on the facts that I provide."
As Obama speaks of citizens getting too much information, his FCC Chairman is attempting to get it done by slowly picking the lock on the back door.
Regulators to reassert broadband regulation
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Federal Communications Commission will announce on Thursday that it will reassert regulation of broadband and continue an open Internet policy, but also refrain from imposing strict regulatory burdens on broadband providers like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast.
A senior FCC official said on Wednesday that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has decided to stick with preserving a free and open Internet under a middle-of-the-road approach.
He is seeking to walk a line between moving forward with a bold broadband policy and averting a heavy regulatory hand that could spark legal action by companies like Verizon and AT&T.
The FCC's announcement is expected to focus on maintaining the "status quo" for the lightly regulated broadband business that existed prior to a court ruling in April, the FCC official said. The ruling threw into doubt the government's ability to move forward with an ambitious broadband plan.
The FCC's decision would reclassify the regulatory framework for broadband services under an existing set of rules governing telephone services. However, the FCC will not impose the strict regulatory regime associated with telephone services, the official said.
Senator Wicker, who serves on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announced today that he is watching.
MBJ: Wicker critical of proposed new Internet rule
WASHINGTON — In response to FCC chairman Julius Genachowski’s intent to impose stricter regulation on the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) released the following statement:
“I am extremely concerned about chairman Genachowski’s proposal to reclassify broadband services under an antiquated regulatory regime. Doing so would seriously threaten innovation and investment in the Internet marketplace. The unburdened Internet allows communities and small businesses to remain competitive in the local, national, and global marketplaces.
“There is no evidence that imposing this degree of regulatory control over the Internet is necessary or that it would benefit consumers. Unfortunately, this effort appears to be little more than another attempt by the Administration to take over private industry and stifle our economy. This is not how a good government operates.
“I am committed to working with the FCC and my colleagues to ensure the Internet remains consumer-focused and free of unwarranted regulations that would hinder its continued success.”
In the words of Will Rogers, "Things in our country run in spite of government, not by aid of it.”
In a huge win for the free market and limited government, a federal appeals court today put a halt to the Federal Communications Commission’s attempt to exert its authority over the Internet and its power play to regulate the companies who provide access to it.
The decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, centers around the FCC’s efforts to enact “net neutrality,” a policy that would prevent ISPs such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from managing the flow of traffic on the Internet by discriminating among content and applications that put a high load on their networks.
The Associated Press is reporting that the FCC has lost a key ruling on it's desire to begin regulating free speech on the internet. We can only hope that this is as big of a setback as the writer suggests. Youtube, Google, and any other major innovation might not be at our fingertips today were this type of regulation in place when they were dreamed up. Net Neutrality is government control. Period. The organization of the TEA Party's, the ability for small Mom and Pop Companies to make a name for themselves alongside the big players of Corporate America, the advent of the blogging writer digging for the truth and putting it out there for the world to see and debate, true and unregulated 21st century dialogue . . . with Net Neutrality it's all gone.
The ruling itself had little to do with content, and focused more on ISP companies participating in what's referred to as traffic shaping. Companies had been traffic shaping in order to penalize users who illegally download copyrighted material such as music and movies, through the use of torrent files.
However, the ruling clearly questions the FCC's authority to control ISP's "network management practices," a clear sign that the content related regulation of Net Neutrality proponents would be an uphill battle. The court’s decision states that while the FCC is permitted to make rules and issue orders to fulfill its own responsibilities, “for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast’s network management practices.”
FCC loses key ruling on Internet `neutrality'
By JOELLE TESSLER - AP Technology Writer
A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations and U.S. broadband expansion plans into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.
The case centers on Comcast's actions in 2007 when it interfered with an online file-sharing service called BitTorrent, which allows users to swap big files such as movies over the Internet. But public interest groups stressed that the ramifications of Tuesday's ruling are much broader. That's because it undercuts the FCC's ability to prevent broadband providers from becoming gatekeepers for many kinds of online services, potentially including Internet phone programs and software that runs in a Web browser.
"Today's appeals court decision means there are no protections in the law for consumers' broadband services," Gigi Sohn, co-founder of Public Knowledge, said in a statement. "Companies selling Internet access are free to play favorites with content on their networks, to throttle certain applications or simply to block others."
The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.
In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans" and "will rest these policies ... on a solid legal foundation."
Comcast welcomed the decision, saying "our primary goal was always to clear our name and reputation."
At the heart of the court case is Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning it from blocking subscribers from using BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net neutrality principles adopted in 2005.
Net Neutrality is government regulation. It is the FCC picking and choosing what it decides is and is not in the best interest of the public. One of the biggest proponents is Al Gore. Need I say more?
The Cato Institute probably put it best when it calls Net Neutrality "A Solution In Search of A Problem.'"
This is a very good video from Reason TV that answers the question, "What the hell is Net Neutrality?"
And below is a video of Candidate Barack Obama endorsing Net Neutrality in 2007 to, as he puts it, "ensure the free and full exchange of information." Remember, he's the one that just gave us a $940 trillion dollar bill that would ensure the free and full exchange of health care for all citizens.
I ain't buying any of it. Reagan reminded us . . .
