Verizon challenges FCC's net neutrality rules

Sorry Verizon, all the cable-phone-internet systems are in VIOLATION of U.S. anti-trust laws AND the airwaves belong to American citizens. Also, bring back the fairness doctrine, or a progressive version of it, now. The overbloviation of the retarded rightwingnutbaggers, all over the airwaves is appalling. Intelligent thought is purposely blocked by these giant corporate whores.

Verizon is right and the government take over of the internet is wrong.

As Capitol Confidential noted the other day, net neutrality is an issue that that is dear to the left, but has flown under the radar of most Americans.

It’s a rather technical and arcane subject, but can be summed up rather simply: Net neutrality rules enforced by the Federal Communications Commission would allow government bureaucrats to micromanage the Internet — thus sucking out the lifeblood of the digital economy and threatening the dynamism and freedom we’ve come to take for granted online.

Proponents of net neutrality claim that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) abuse their position as “gatekeepers” to the Web, and the public needs government to establish strict “rules of the road” to protect us from their scheming.

Trouble is, the evidence of abusive practices by ISPs is anecdotal and thinner than an iPod mini.

The digital economy is currently so dynamic and cutthroat that free-market forces work quickly to correct any undesirable hiccups that arise — all without any micro-managing of the tech industry by government.

Net neutrality advocates insist we need government to preserve an “open” and “free” Internet and claim the market has failed. But they cannot point to any market failures that make the Internet less open or free.

In short, the Internet isn’t broken. And it doesn’t need a government fix. No matter. The left presses ahead, because the facts are irrelevant.

The goal is to put government in charge of digital policy, taking away your freedom as a consumer to shape the Internet with your own choices.

This would stifle the enormous private investment and innovation that has created the modern Internet — in part, because industries would be relegated to playing “Mother May I?” with the FCC before releasing its latest innovation. And that’s the best-case scenario.

The Reason Foundation’s Steve Titch argues that if government-enforced net neutrality rules were in place five years ago, the iPhone as we know it wouldn’t exist.

But on a more basic level, only a committed leftist could believe that more government involvement in … well … anything results is more economic dynamism and gains in personal freedom.

As noted in the video below, produced by The Heartland Institute, government isn’t in the business of preserving freedom, but of exercising power to regulate industries and control people.

And this is an important thing to keep in mind — especially since President Obama recently reiterated his commitment to have government enforce a net neutrality regime on your Internet.

The video takes apart Obama’s statements on the subject in his Feb. 1 YouTube interview, and attempts to take the broader view so what’s at stake can be better understood by non-techies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

The ACLU is Wrong: Net Neutrality Is About Government Control of Internet Content

29. October 2010

I sincerely hope followers of the Network Neutrality (NN) debate were wearing their seatbelts last week. The pro-NN Media Marxists’ rapid lurch in position on the issue would otherwise have ensured full chiropractor employment for a pronounced period of time.

What led to this The-Ends-Justify-Any-Means-Nec essary backflip is the Cablevision-Fox dustup over fees Cablevision pays Fox to retransmit the latter’s programming. The two parties couldn’t reach an agreement, the contract elapsed and Fox pulled its channels from the Cablevision lineup.

Fox then went a step further, temporarily making some of its online content unavailable to Cablevision subscribers.

Let us be clear what happened here. The Content Provider (Fox) had prevented the Internet Service Provider (Cablevision) from access to its online content.

And after all, it is Fox’s property. They paid a LOT of money for its creation, development and deployment – they can do with it whatever they wish. They can offer it to whomever, or not offer it to anyone at all. If they want to withhold some or all of it from some or all people, that is their prerogative – especially when they are not being paid for it.

It is here that the pro-Net Neutrality crowd jumped the intellectual shark. Well, again. They asserted that Fox – by not giving away their property online – was in violation of the Media Marxists’ warped definition of NN.

And that Fox’s “violation” served as further “justification” for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-mandated Net Neutrality – and the radical, extra-lawful Internet power grab they have been demanding the FCC make so as to commandeer the authority necessary to enact and enforce it.

(An investment-devastating move which the FCC may very well execute as soon as November 30th.)

FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in a statement:

For a broadcaster to pull programming from the Internet for a cable company’s subscribers, as apparently happened here, directly threatens the open Internet.
(??????)

For years these Leftists have been vociferously insisting that the enemies of NN are the evil Internet Service Providers – who would allegedly block access to online fare. And thusly Net Neutrality was required to stop them from so doing.

But by attempting to frame the Cablevision-Fox dispute in NN terms – by demanding that Fox give away its content to everyone – the pro-NN gaggle clearly demonstrates that this fight is not (just) about ACCESS to Internet content – it is about GOVERNMENT CONTROL of Internet content.

They seek to neutralize the Internet – by having the government control its content.

Yesterday, it was about access to content. Today, it’s the government demanding content providers give away the products they produce.

Tomorrow, it will be the government demanding content providers pull from the Web the products they produce. Shutting you up by insisting you shut it down.

After all, government control is government control. Once they have it, they have it all the way.

How pathetically sad it is that the ACLU – the alleged champion of the First Amendment – has so readily sacrificed it on the altar of Leftist ideology. And done so in such an intellectually vacuous fashion – the First Amendment protects us from GOVERNMENT censorship, not the actions of private companies or individuals.

To say that force feeding the nation Net Neutrality is a First Amendment imperative is both factually and morally bankrupt.

http://stopnetregulation.org/stop/the-aclu-is...

More on Google lobbying and influence in the Obama admin

Net Neutrality would prevent competition from entering Google's field

Posted by Chris O'Brien
February 1st, 2010

Over the weekend, my column looked at the remarkable growth in Google’s lobbying operation in Washington, D.C. In just four years, Google has become the valley’s second largest company when it comes to lobbying expenditures.

Naturally, I left out a some details. While the story focused on money, there are other ways Google has been trying to extend its influence. And their adoption of these strategies shows how quickly the company has become savvy in the ways of Washington.

Let’s run through a few of these.

Google’s lobbying team includes the usual requisite of former government officials from agencies that have been having an impact on the company’s business. The lobbying team includes former employees from the Justice Department, Treasury, the FCC, and Congressional staffs, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

One of the interesting things you can see from that data at CPR’s OpenSecrets.org is the growing range of issues that Google is lobbying on. In 2009, the top issues included advertising, energy, trade, telecom and anti-trust. Of those, only trade was listed among Google’s issues in 2005. And the list of agencies and branches of government that Google lobbies has grown extensively.

Of course, it’s no surprise that anti-trust is near the top of the list of issues. Just in the last couple of years, Google faced this anti-trust inquiries with its acquisition of DoubleClick, saw its search deal with Yahoo scuttled, and now faces a review of its plans to buy AdMob.

Google has also been savvy about hiring former government officials in non-lobbying positions. For instance, in 2008 and 2009, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission was concerned about some of the ways Google was accounting for various costs related to traffic acquisition, and also had questions about whether the company was being transparent enough on some issues such as whether or not it was disclosing enough information about letting a large group of contractors go.

These questions were all resolved without the SEC taking any formal actions. The Google official reponding to those questions? It was Mark Fuchs, Google’s vice president of finance and chief accountant, who used to work at the SEC.

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2010/02/01/more-on...

Google Lobbying:

Several Google employees have gone to work in the Obama administration:

* Andrew McLauglin, former Google policy chief, serves as Obama’s deputy chief technology officer.

* Katie Stanton, former principal of Google’s New Business Development team, is now Obama’s director of citizen participation.

* Sonal Shah, a Google lobbyist and head of global development issues at Google.org , served as an adivsor on the Obama transition team. She previously worked in the Treasury Department.

* Sumit Agarwal, Google’s head of mobile product management, will become deputy assistant secretary of defense for outreach and social media in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense ,it was announced last week.

* CEO Eric Schmidt is a member of President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

http://www.siliconbeat.com/2010/02/01/more-on...

We have learned of an apparent conflict of interest for a senior Obama administration official already in hot water over questions about his communications with his former employer.

Andrew Mclaughlin is the Deputy Chief Technology Officer for the Office of Science & Technology Policy at the White House. His prior job was as the top lobbyist for Google.

President Obama made numerous promises about not having lobbyists in his administration.

LIAR!

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/...

Privacy flaws in Google Buzz’s social networking tool exposed McLaughlin’s Buzz account to the public.

The analysis showed that McLaughlin’s Gmail included more than two dozen senior lobbyists and lawyers from Google with whom he is apparently still communicating. Following a consumer group’s FOIA request for all of McLaughlin’s communications with his former employer, his Google Buzz account was deleted.

Now we’ve learned that McLaughlin may be actively advocating on his former employer’s behalf in his position as Deputy CTO — a big no-no for government employees who are required to abide by rigorous conflict of interest policies.

FOX (where opinion counts as news) couldn't have stated it better. Totally and completely false. It's the corporate owned Internet Service Providers who want to limit certain products and services on their sites, to limit competitors from their sites and to direct you to their products and services. Republican version of "free markets".

The FCC was originally charged with the oversight of AT&T since it was a monoply. It was responsible for telephones not the internet. After rulings by the FCC several years ago, the US 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC had no jurisdiction over the internet.

The FCC will end up before the First again and will once again be told that they have no jurisdiction over the internet. If the odummy administration wants to control the internet, it needs to petition Congress to expand the role of the FCC to include the internet.

This is just one more attempted power grab by the odummy administration.

Why is the Right Wing so afraid of any law that protects freedom of speech?

imaginaryfriend wrote:

Sorry Verizon, all the cable-phone-internet systems are in VIOLATION of U.S. anti-trust laws AND the airwaves belong to American citizens. Also, bring back the fairness doctrine, or a progressive version of it, now. The overbloviation of the retarded rightwingnutbaggers, all over the airwaves is appalling. Intelligent thought is purposely blocked by these giant corporate whores.

So you want to take away free speech?,typical left wing socialist democrat. The way you think,you would like it much better in China or Russia,have a nice trip.

swampmudd wrote:

Why is the Right Wing so afraid of any law that protects freedom of speech?

"Afraid of any law?" What law? There has been no law passed that gives the FCC dominion over the internet.

If this administration wants to control the internet, let them propose a law that would grant the FCC authority over the internet. So far adummy and his minions have attempted to control our lives through rules made by unelected bureaucrats in such agencies as EPA, OSHA, and now the FCC. This practice needs to stop. We are dangerously close to becoming an "enlightened" dictatorship run by a few elites.

The United States is a nation of laws; laws ratified by a congress that has been duely elected by citizens. The FCC was charged by Congress with the oversight of phone companies not the internet. If you want the FCC to oversee the internet then get the law changed.

Spy Agency Sought U.S. Call Records Before 9/11, Lawyers Say
http://tinyurl.com/egle8 June 30
(Bloomberg)-- The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court.

The allegation is part of a court filing adding AT&T, the nation's largest telephone company, as a defendant in a breach of privacy case filed earlier this month on behalf of Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. customers. The suit alleges that the three carriers, the NSA and President George W. Bush violated the Telecommunications Act of 1934 and the U.S. Constitution, and seeks money damages.

``The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'' plaintiff's lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview.``This undermines that assertion.''
The lawsuit is related to an alleged NSA program to record and store data on calls placed by subscribers. More than 30 suits have been filed over claims that the carriers, the three biggest U.S. telephone companies, violated the privacy rights of their customers by cooperating with the NSA in an effort to track alleged terrorists.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news...

----------

VERIZON & AT&T SPY ON ALL THEIR CUSTOMERS
Telecom Whistleblower Discovers Circuit that Allows Access to All Systems on Wireless Carrier—Phone Calls, Text Messages, Emails and More / April 10, 2008 / http://tinyurl.com/4u8nla
Babak Pasdar is a computer security expert who was hired in 2003 to help restructure the tech infrastructure at a major wireless telecommunications company. What he found shocked him. The company had set up a system that gave a third party, presumably a governmental entity, access to every communication coming through that company’s infrastructure. This means every email, internet use, document transmission, video, text message, as well as the ability to listen to and record any phone call.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/4/10/telecom...

AT&T whistleblower Mark Klein to Senate: "they’re doing a huge, massive domestic dragnet on everybody in the United States"
http://www.correntewire.com/at_t_whistleblowe...

AT&T Whistleblower Speaks Out Against Retroactive Immunity
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

AT&T Whistleblower: Spy Bill Creates 'Infrastructure for a Police State'
Mark Klein, the retired AT&T engineer who stepped forward with the technical documents at the heart of the anti-wiretapping case against AT&T, is furious at the Senate's vote on Wednesday night to hold a vote on a bill intended to put an end to that lawsuit and more than 30 others.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/att-...

Whistleblower Mark Klein
Mark Klein alleges that AT&T cooperated with the National Security Agency in 2003 to install equipment capable of eavesdropping on the public's e-mail messages and other Internet traffic. He worked for AT&T as a technician for over 22 years, first in New York and then in California, before leaving the company in 2004
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/307/mark-klein.h...

==========

NSA Whistleblower Alleges Illegal Spying
Former Employee Admits to Being a Source for The New York Times
Jan. 10, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/ab2gc
Russell Tice, a longtime insider at the National Security Agency, is now a whistleblower the agency would like to keep quiet.
For 20 years, Tice worked in the shadows as he helped the United States spy on other people's conversations around the world.
"I specialized in what's called special access programs," Tice said of his job. "We called them 'black world' programs and operations."
But now, Tice tells ABC News that some of those secret "black world" operations run by the NSA were operated in ways that he believes violated the law. He is prepared to tell Congress all he knows about the alleged wrongdoing in these programs run by the Defense Department and the NSA in the post-9/11 efforts to go after terrorists.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story...

maddog2008 wrote:

<quoted text>So you want to take away free speech?,typical left wing socialist democrat. The way you think,you would like it much better in China or Russia,have a nice trip.

You seem to think the Government censorship of communications is not acceptable but private censorship is. That in essence is the difference between Liberals and today’s neo-cons. Liberals are against any form of censorship where-as the Right is only against forms of censorship they think they can not control. The point of fact is that laws requiring that everybody be given an equal chance to speak and be heard are not censorship.