It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama FCC Caves on Net Neutrality; Tuesday Betrayal Assured

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   

Obama FCC Caves on Net Neutrality; Tuesday Betrayal Assured


www.savetheinternet.com

…a majority of the FCC's commissioners indicated that they're going to vote with Chairman Julius Genachowski for a toothless Net Neutrality rule.

…The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.naturalnews.com
www.naturalnews.com
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.msnbc.msn.com

Related ATS Links:
Internet Freedom
Internet Freedom
Internet Freedom
Internet Freedom
edit on 21/12/10 by soficrow because: to add ATS links




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Internet Freedom and Net Neutrality are complex issues - and I've flip-flopped a lot over the past year. The thing is, "Net Neutrality" sounds great and if it was real, if it was what it says it is, it would be great. But it's not.

The persecution of Julian Assange and the Wikileaks shutdown show us, without a doubt, that our governments' "commitments" to Internet Freedom are not real. The goal is to control the information flow, restrict our choices, and control the population. That's us.


Former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega was once a paid CIA asset. Would reporting that now be a crime?


But I was elated when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made that wonderful speech about internet freedom in Washington DC in January, 2010.

Declared Clinton:


Information has never been so free. Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.

[She said] Barack Obama had…

…defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity.


But "political realities" demand "consensus building" aka kissing corporate ass aka selling us out. So we got sold out.


It's not the FCC chairman's job to seek consensus among the corporations that he was put into office to regulate. His duty is to protect Internet users.

…Net Neutrality is the freedom of speech, freedom of choice issue of the 21st century. It's the guarantee of a more open and democratic media system that was baked into the Internet at its founding.


Why were we sold out? Because our nation depends on global corporations for essential goods and services - not just toys and bling. Because all our nations' economies are now joined at the hip to the global corporate economy, and our national governments bow to the global corporate government. And give them what they want because they're afraid of losing more jobs to developing nations, which would result in anarchy and riots in the street and inevitably, lost elections. And just maybe, because they're really lousy negotiators. And lack vision.

According to Tim Karr in the article quoted above:


For the first time in history of telecommunications law the FCC has given its stamp of approval to online discrimination.
Instead of a rule to protect Internet users' freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola - letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections. This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.
Instead of re-establishing the FCC's authority to act as a consumer watchdog over the Internet, it places the agency's authority on a shaky and indefensible legal footing - giving ultimate control over the Internet to a small handful of carriers.


Tim Karr wants Net Neutrality, and more rules and regs and "protections" than are given. Others don't want any.

Some people fear that expanding the FCC's powers to govern the Internet will just give control over to global corporations - and the Internet will become another tool for global corporate government - and control.

According to Mike Adams on NaturalNews:


…the internet allows individual information publishers to bypass the censorship of government.

…The internet, of course, has been operating freely and without any real government censorship for roughly two decades. In that time, it has grown to be what is arguably the most influential medium in the world for information distribution. Most importantly, the internet is the medium of information freedom that is not controlled by any government.

The U.S. government wants to change all that, and they've dispatched the FCC to reign in the "freedoms" of the internet.

…By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to control and censor the internet.

This is why "net neutrality" is a threat to internet freedom. It's not because of anything to do with net neutrality itself, but rather with the FCC's big power grab in its assertion that it has authority over websites just like it has authority over broadcast radio.



Here's how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls "information traitors," which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can't be a traitor since he's not even American in the first place, but don't expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include "information terrorists" which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations.




The FCC is poised to become the FDA of internet information, banning alternative speech and enforcing an information monopoly engineered by powerful corporations.

Think of the FCC as the new the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's novel 1984.


Global corporations are global because they're master opportunists. They're not constrained by human considerations, or any legal obligations to respect individual civil rights or the Constitution. And they don't.

Big Brother is corporate and runs the Ministry of Truth. Under law. True, it's a complex legal tangle, but the paths and powers are clear.

…Did you know? Bloggers and internet journalists are right now imprisoned all over the world for merely posting the truth.




No person should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.




www.savetheinternet.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
*from a similar thread*

If it works there it will spread like a virus to the entire world.

The ruling elites like to have control over the un-educated masses. And since their interests collude with their sponsors (ie, mega and not so mega corporations) it will be quick before 'for our own good' everyone will approve similar laws.

The leaders are so good and caring! LONG LIVE THE LEADERS!


(and pass on that delicious soylent green)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:30 AM
link   
reply to post by jmlima
 



Thanks jmlima.


And thanks to RUSSO, Orwell Rolls in His Grave, the Documentary.


"Could a media system, controlled by a few global corporations with the ability to overwhelm all competing voices, be able to turn lies into truth?..." This chilling documentary film examines the relationship between the media, corporate America, and government. In a country where the "top 1% control 90% of the wealth", the film argues that the media system is nothing but a "subsidiary of corporate America."

Director: Robert Kane Pappas - Run Time 1 Hour 46 Minutes


video.google.com...

Google Video Link



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Net Neutrality is the camel's nose under the tent. It will be followed by serious interference from the FCC busy bodies and their fascist advocates. The Internet was free of government interference. Once Net Neutrality comes about, it will be under government control and at the whim of whatever fascist/communist group organizes to screech the loudest about unbrideled "hate speech" or harming "the children." This is disgusting.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sara123123
 


Thanks for contributing. But.. Are you saying you do not agree with my hypothesis / observations?



The FCC is poised to become the FDA of internet information, banning alternative speech and enforcing an information monopoly engineered by powerful corporations.

Big Brother is corporate and runs the Ministry of Truth. Under law. True, it's a complex legal tangle, but the paths and powers are clear.




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by sara123123
reply to post by soficrow
 

... organizes to screech the loudest about unbrideled "hate speech" or harming "the children." This is disgusting.


This is being prepared in the UK. :

www.guardian.co.uk...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:57 AM
link   
This will end the last refuge of free speech, after this all we will hear is what they want us to hear.All in the name of protecting the kids, or us from terrorist, etc. We will be back to printing pamplets in our basements.....kinda like Ben Franklin



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by lastrebel
 



...the last refuge of free speech


That's exactly what the Internet is.


...and thanks jmlima - the screws are tightening everywhere. Looks suspiciously like international coordination, doesn't it?

Once the new laws, regs and rules are enacted expect a LOT more Internet journalists, bloggers and editors in jail.

NOTE: The following Reports and Census were completed before Assange was arrested, and before all the new rules, regs and laws were brought to the "free" world.



New York, December 4, 2008 - Reflecting the rising influence of online reporting and commentary, more Internet journalists are jailed worldwide today than journalists working in any other medium. …45 percent of all media workers jailed worldwide are bloggers, Web-based reporters, or online editors.

* In about 11 percent of cases, governments have used a variety of charges unrelated to journalism to retaliate against critical writers, editors, and photojournalists. Such charges range from regulatory violations to drug possession. In the cases included in this census, CPJ has determined that the charges were most likely lodged in reprisal for the journalist's work.

* Violations of censorship rules, the next most common charge, are applied in about 10 percent of cases. Criminal defamation charges are filed in about 7 percent of cases, while charges of ethnic or religious insult are lodged in another 4 percent. Two journalists are jailed for filing what authorities consider to be "false" news. (More than one type of charge may apply in individual cases.)

* …imprisonments rose significantly in 2001, after governments imposed sweeping national security laws in the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Imprisonments stood at 81 in 2000 but have since averaged 128 in CPJ's annual surveys.

* The United States, which is holding photographer Ibrahim Jassam without charge in Iraq, has made CPJ's list of countries jailing journalists for the fifth consecutive year. During this period, U.S. military authorities have jailed dozens of journalists in Iraq--some for days, others for months at a time--without charge or due process. No charges have ever been substantiated in these cases.


Also see:

2010 prison census: 145 journalists jailed worldwide



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Here is a thread that looks into Internet Regulation by the UN www.abovetopsecret.com...

No one here looks happy about what is going on, hopefully give you a few tips if you go through it.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:17 AM
link   
I've have stated in other threads on this topic that this is the handy work of Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory Czar. The man has written books and given speeches on the topic of reworking the First Amendment. He and others like him believe that, in its current form, the First Amendment is outdated. He wants everyone on the same playing field and does not believe in the gathering of like minds and ideas on websites, blogs and organizations. Kind of ironic actually when you consider the gathering of like minds in Obama's cabinet and in his regime of hand picked Czars.

The UN is pushing for this. Hungary has just passed media regulation legislation that gives its govt. sweeping control over the media.. Chavez is cracking down on the internet in Venezuela.

From Venezuela:

Venezuela's parliament approved tighter regulation of the Internet on Monday in the latest of a package of laws to entrench President Hugo Chavez's socialist "revolution" before a new Assembly is sworn-in next month.

Members of his ruling Socialist Party say the move brings South America's top oil producer into line with international norms for policing the Web.


Catch that last part? In line with international norms! Suppose this is what the UN is trying to do?


Under the new regulations, all Internet traffic is supposed to pass through a single, government-controlled access point, stoking opposition fears about surveillance and censorship.


Interesting!!

www.reuters.com...



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:42 AM
link   
I really don't know why they took a very simple concept from 10 years ago and make it into a giant conjumbled clusterfark.
the net was created by tax dollars...it is owned by everyone and is supported by everyone. Net Neutrality is supposed to simply be non-preference treatment of data through service providers..thats really it.

Those opposing net neutrality need to die a slow and horrible death..but the new net neutrality is written up as your typical freaking congress law with enough loopholes to make it stupid.


The way its currently worked out should the law pass, wireless services (your phones and such) are nerfed...good luck with your subscription packages.

however, if it doesn't pass...everyone is nerfed and the internet dies.

This should be a big deal..this is a big deal...ATS needs to get behind at least this and slap a banner across their front page to get people involved, however, its too damn late now anyhow.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Thanks for posting that. The walls are closing in.

SeaWind



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
The thing is, "Net Neutrality" sounds great and if it was real, if it was what it says it is, it would be great. But it's not.

This is a mischaracterization. Net neutrality is great, what the FCC approved isn’t because it is not net neutrality.

This is just another word game, and we’ve seen it hundreds of times in America. Whether in Congress — by passing legislation with what can only characterized as ironic names (e.g. “Patriot Act”) — or by the Executive Branch (e.g. “enhanced interrogation techniques”)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by soficrow
The thing is, "Net Neutrality" sounds great and if it was real, if it was what it says it is, it would be great. But it's not.


This is a mischaracterization.



Hmmm. "...if it was real, if it was what it says it is, it would be great. But it's not."

I don't get your point. How is that a mischaracterization?



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join