BREAKING: FCC Approves Net Neutrality

FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler

From Politico:

The Federal Communications Commission voted along party lines Thursday to approve sweeping changes to how it regulates the Internet, capping more than a year of noisy debate that sparked millions of public comments and drew the attention of President Barack Obama and congressional leaders. 

The agency’s three Democrats voted to approve Chairman Tom Wheeler’s net neutrality order, which would treat broadband like a utility to ensure all Web traffic is treated equally.  

The commission’s two GOP members, Republican lawmakers and the nation’s telecom giants oppose the rules, saying they will dampen innovation and investment. AT&T has already threatened a legal challenge. 

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It’s simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field,” Wheeler said at Thursday’s FCC’s meeting. 

“Today is a red-letter day for Internet freedom, for consumers who want to use the Internet on their terms, for innovators who want to reach consumers without the control of gatekeepers.” 

In a separate decision Thursday, the FCC’s Democratic majority voted to override state laws that prevent community-run broadband networks in Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina from expanding their geographic reach. The move will help such locally managed networks compete with incumbent cable and telecom companies.

“The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet."

So naturally the government thinks it ought to be in charge.

And puts itself in charge without the vote of Congress.

Taxation without Representation.

We don't have a government anymore.

Obama Wants The Internet

From the National Journal: Obama Backs Government-Run Internet.

Get ready for it. The Congress critters we have are impotent.

The Obama Administration Is Killing The Internet

From Breitbart's Big Government, dated August 20, 2012:

Bad policy after bad policy. Often illegally imposed. As a result, the Tech Sector – 1/6 of our nation’s economy, as big as health care – is hemorrhaging jobs. Tech Layoffs Hit 3-year High in First Half of 2012

And our Internet service would be better, faster and cheaper were it not for this Administration.

The damage done by taxes and regulations is often unseen. The money wasted - either sent to government or spent complying with ridiculous over-regulation - could have instead been invested in improving and expanding existing service, nd hiring people to make it all happen.

The worst gig-and-progress-killing Administration Internet power grab of all was the December 2010 illegal imposition of Network Neutrality [video]. Net Neutrality eviscerates private sector investment in the infrastructure necessary to maintain and continue building the World Wide Web – exactly as ObamaCare does to private sector health care....

Read it all HERE. This is important!

Without the Internet, our vulnerability to tyranny increases astronomically!

Obama wants the power to take over the Internet — and he may try to do it by executive order

Internet Kill Switch: Tell Me This Doesn't Matter

Please, please, tell me that I'm overreacting.

From Bunkerville:

Not much excitement about this apparently.So what he cannot do by Congressional action, he does by fiat. The interesting part is that his Executive Order was posted in the Federal Register and gives 30 days for responses. Presidential powers over the Internet and telecommunications were laid out in a U.S. Senate bill in 2009, which proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet. But that legislation was not included in the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 earlier this year. I would ask, why must Janet cut off private networks? I caught some discussion of this, and the rationale was that “misinformation” may need to be curtailed. Where did I hear that before? Anyone still wondering where we are headed with this?...

More at Bunkerville.

Notice At Mozilla/Firefox

HERE.

Snippet:

The internet we know and love is at risk. Help save it.

Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could profoundly affect the future of the internet. It's called the Stop Online Piracy Act.

The fact is that this legislation as written won't stop piracy. But it would pose a serious threat to social media and user generated content sites (like YouTube) across the internet. It could also undermine some of the core technical systems underlying the internet, creating new cybersecurity risks.

As a non-profit committed to keeping the web open and accessible to all, Mozilla wants to ensure that this legislation does not jeopardize the foundational structure of the Internet.

So we've done two things so far...

Read the rest HERE.

Jihadis nest on Facebook

While Tea Partiers are shown the door:

Jihadi media organizations are forming Facebook pages to bypass restrictions on terrorist organizations, and to pass on videos, pictures, and documents to followers. While Facebook bans inciting violence or hateful content, jihadi media groups slide underneath the restrictions because they are poorly known.

China, India, and the OIC Conspiring To Have International Governing Body Take Over The Internet?

From Creeping Sharia, with thanks to Damien:


The stark conclusion from a report by Aaron Eitan Meyer at the Lawfare Project:

The three specific issues considered above serve to illustrate that the Internet is at a critical stage of development during its shift from a primarily American-directed creation to a multilaterally regulated entity. The Arab League and OIC have determined technological development and the Internet itself to be high-priority areas of development, and it is likely that gaining influence and/or control over Internet infrastructure, including through ICANN, is part of the apparent OIC strategy, though it has been the Arab League that has so far taken concrete steps to gain recognition and power at ICANN.
To this point, continued American control of ICANN and its critical subsidiary, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA),[33] have largely directed the development of the Internet. However, there is considerable pressure on the United States to cede control over IANA to ICANN when the current contract between the Department of Commerce and IANA expires on September 20, 2011,[34] including pressure emanating from the European Union, as expressed at ICANN’s meeting in Brussels held this past June.[35]
Should the United States prove to be amenable to the E.U.’s suggestions and allow the contract with IANA to expire, it would lose considerable influence over ICANN, and the power structures governing Internet expansion and evolution would shift considerably – and not necessarily solely towards a European-dominated model.

Sultan Knish comments further on Lawfare’s report in Hijacking the Internet:

The OIC has already effectively used the UN to push its censorship agenda. But the UN is virtually toothless when it comes to the United States. However if the Muslim world can dominate ICANN the way it dominates the UN General Assembly, then free speech on the internet is dead.

If this succeeds then 10 years from now, not only will sites like Jihad Watch or Religion of Peace lose their domain names, and most discussion of Islamic terrorism have to ‘go on the run’ in pop up social media groups that constantly get shut down (already the situation on sites such as Facebook) functioning like rats in the walls. But even the sites of mainstream politicians and newspapers will be targeted. Mandatory filtering by ISP’s. The removal of Israel’s Il domain, are all possibilities. And if anything I probably haven’t gone far enough.

The internet will become what the UN General Assembly is, a voice that speaks the Islamic narrative as one and bans any discussion or debate. Or marginalizes it so far that it never gets heard. Is this already underway? Yes.

On September 25, 2010, ICANN’s board of directors removed a reference to “terrorism” from the fourth version of its Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG, or DAGv4), after complaints were received from several Arab individuals and organizations.
1) Until 2009, ICANN necessarily complied with applicable United States Office of Foreign Assets Control regulations regarding terrorism, and had no reason to specify such as the subject of a background check.
2) The term “terrorism” was included without any conceivably objectionable modifiers such as “Islamist.”
3) The Chairman of the (Pan Arab) Multilingual Internet Group Khaled Fattal declared that the term “terrorism” itself was objectionable because “it will be seen by millions of Muslims and Arabs as racist, prejudicial and profiling.” Fattal requested not only its removal, but an apology from ICANN.

The two-pronged approach of silencing dissent and unleashing terror is underway. This is why the internationalization of ICANN poses the gravest of threats not just to the thing we call freedom of speech on the internet, but to the entire global organization of knowledge and debate that has come to run through its networks. If ICANN goes IslamCANN then they will have captured the consensus.

This is a situation that few are talking about, even though in retrospect it may come to be one of the 5 issues that dramatically changes the world as we know it.

Meanwhile the UN is working along its own track.

The United Nations is considering whether to set up an inter-governmental working group to harmonise global efforts by policy makers to regulate the internet.
Establishment of such a group has the backing of several countries, spearheaded by Brazil.
At a meeting in New York on Wednesday, representatives from Brazil called for an international body made up of Government representatives that would attempt to create global standards for policing the internet – specifically in reaction to challenges such as WikiLeaks.
The Brazilian delegate stressed, however, that this should not be seen as a call for a “takeover” of the internet.

But that’s exactly what it is. A unified set of laws with regard to the internet is not about policing criminal activity. That is already policed under existing laws. It’s about criminalizing dissent.

Brazil’s left wing regime, which just decided to recognize Palestinian Arab terrorists as a state, tried to help Iranian dictator Ahmadinejad get nuclear fuel, is acting as a stalking horse for the takeover of the internet.

India, South Africa, China and Saudi Arabia appeared to favour a new possible over-arching inter-government body.

The appearance of China and Saudi Arabia on this list is not exactly shocking. China wants to tightly control all content that its citizens access. And Saudi Arabia representing the Muslim world wants to control the depiction of Islam worldwide. Between the Muslim world and China and left wing regimes like Brazil, there is a common agenda. Censorship. Control.

US politicians have responded to moves from within the United Nations to form an inter-Government panel to regulate the internet, putting forward a resolution demanding the UN maintain a “hands-off approach”.
California Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack has put forward a resolution that the United Nations and other international governmental organisations take their hands off the Internet.
Introducing House Resolution 1775 [see full text below], Mack argued that “the Internet has progressed and thrived precisely because it has not been subjected to the suffocating effect of a governmental organization’s heavy hand.
“The attempt of the United Nations to overtake something that is so central to our economy-like the Internet-is offensive and completely out of line,” she said.
“We have a hard enough time keeping the Federal Communications Commission’s hands off the Internet; imagine having to convince governments like Syria, Iran and Venezuela.”

A Republican congress is better position to oppose this, but the Obama Administration is committed to few things more seriously, than to weakening American power and collaborating with the ascension of the Muslim world.

The only real obstacle is likely to come from tech companies such as Google who benefit from open policies and don’t want to see the boot of dictatorships come down on them. Not just for ideological reasons, but for profit motives too.

Wall Street Journal:

The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom
'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL
Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

View Full Image

David Klein
.Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.

Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

Say Buh-Bye to the Internet on Novemer 30th??

From Veronica, my favorite new Zipper at Weasel Zippers:

(Big Government) November 30^th, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) could potentially engage in one of the largest federal power grabs we have ever seen

After two years of this Presidential Administration and this Congress, that is saying an awful lot about an awful lot.

And what’s worse, the FCC would be doing it without Congress weighing in.  At the FCC’s November meeting – note the coincidental date of choice, AFTER the impending election – three unelected bureaucrats (of five) could simply vote themselves rulers of 1/6th of our entire economy – the information and technology sector.

 Click on the title to read the whole thing.

OBAMA TAKES OVER THE INTERNET

Julius Caesar of the Internet

From The Wall Street Journal
The FCC puts another industry under political control.

A federal appeals court ruled last month that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to regulate the Internet. No worries, mate. This week the Obama Administration chose to "reclassify" the Internet so it can regulate the Web anyway. This crowd is nothing if not legally creative.

For the past decade, broadband has been classified as an "information service" and thus more lightly regulated than traditional telephone services. This has led to an explosion of new investment and Web innovation, but it hasn't sat well with Democrats who want more control over the telecom business, as well as with some Web companies (Google) that want more leverage over Internet service providers like Time Warner or Verizon.

Associated Press FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski did their dirty work this week by announcing that he plans to reclassify broadband lines so his agency can regulate them under rules that were written for Ma Bell in the 1930s. This means subjecting the Internet to new political supervision—from the federal government and 50 state public utility commissions. The goal is to put one more industry under Washington's political thumb.

Even Bill Clinton's FCC, under Chairman Bill Kennard, had refused to go this far. "Classifying Internet access as telecommunication services could have significant consequences for the global development of the Internet," said Mr. Kennard in a 1998 speech. "We recognized the unique qualities of the Internet, and do not presume that legacy regulatory frameworks are appropriately applied to it."

Mr. Genachowski says he's merely hewing to the political middle, pursuing a "third way" on regulation that will "allow the agency to move forward with broadband initiatives that empower consumers and enhance economic growth, while also avoiding regulatory overreach."

But Mr. Genachowski's promise to put in place safeguards so broadband companies are subjected to "only a handful" of phone regulations is hardly reassuring. Even if he keeps his word, what prevents future FCC Chairmen from reversing course? If Google or some other big political donor doesn't get its way, its lobbyists will descend on the White House or Congress, which will lobby the FCC, which may well do their bidding.

Our reporting suggests that something like that may have happened in this case. All indications early this week were that the FCC wouldn't take such a drastic step. But when a Washington Post story reported that news, the liberal "consumer" lobbies went to the barricades, and Mr. Genachowski's team sequestered itself from other FCC commissioners for most of Tuesday. Late Wednesday, he broke the "reclassify" news. Perhaps they all had overnight epiphanies.

In any case, Mr. Genachowski has provided no evidence that the current regulatory approach is failing. The Supreme Court's 2005 Brand X decision reconfirmed cable broadband's current classification as an information service, and that regulatory certainty has led to a burst of capital investment and competition.

In the past five years, U.S. companies have invested $576 billion in communications equipment and structures, according to Bret Swanson of Entropy Economics. Add computers and software, and U.S. capital expenditures on information technology since 2005 have totaled $2.2 trillion. Telecom accounts for nearly half (47%) of all non-structure capital investment in the U.S.

The FCC decision adds a new element of political risk to these investments, which can only make companies more cautious. At a minimum, the FCC action will be challenged in court and introduce years of uncertainty at a time when the economy needs all the risk-taking and investment it can get.

At worst, it will lead to a new era of political meddling in Internet investment, bandwidth allocation, and no doubt much more. Google and others who are cheering now may not like where this ends up when, say, religious right groups start demanding FCC content regulations during the next GOP Administration.

Autos, health care, energy, Wall Street and now telecom. Is there any American industry this Administration doesn't want to run?

Davos proposal: require "licenses" for internet use

From Ace of Spades:

Apparently, this forward thinking, visionary, and very prudent measure was put forth by Craig Mundie, chief research and strategy officer for Microsoft.

...A “driver’s licence” for the web would be Christmas every day of the year for the control freaks....

...Without the internet, the completely fictitious global warming “consensus” would still be unchallenged, state power massively enlarged, $54 trillion of Western taxpayers’ money flooding into the coffers of carbon companies and people’s lives made miserable by totalitarian restrictions imposed to counter a non-existent threat...

Its not clear at present what the pass/fail criteria for license testing would be, who would administer them, what their duration would be, and if retesting upon renewal would be required, or if fees would be collected.

ABOMINATION: US RELINQUISHES CONTROL OF THE INTERNET

Pamela's got it right. If not America, then who?

From Atlas Shrugs:

If not America, who? The US, beacon of life, liberty, and stalwart defender of individual rights, is giving up "ownership" of the internet. The new agreement gives other countries, and the UN the ability to set internet use policies. Wee, dear friends ..... for those whose only shot of communication will be snuffed out.

It is amazing how much damage to our rights can be done in such a short period of time.

Watch for Sharia law to find its way into this.

China will say no to their dissidents.

Islam will say no and work block sites that attempt to reveal their bloody plans.

It was our extraordinary gift to the world ............... and like some depraved drunk we toss it away and relinquish control to the vultures and destroyers. We kept it free.

John Bolton said at his recent appearance at Duke University, ""it's not American strength that's provocative, it's American weakness.'

US relinquishes control of the internet Guardian

• • Icann ends agreement with the US government
• • Move will give other countries a prominent internet role

After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish somecontrol over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.

Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.

The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.

Icann had previously been operating under the auspices of the American government, which had control of the net thanks to its initial role in developing the underlying technologies used for connecting computers together.

But the fresh focus will give other countries a more prominent role in determining what takes place online, and even the way in which it happens – opening the door for a virtual United Nations, where many officials gather to discuss potential changes to the internet.

United States Giving Up Control Of The Internet?

From this article in the Guardian:

After complaints about American dominance of the internet and growing disquiet in some parts of the world, Washington has said it will relinquish some control over the way the network is run and allow foreign governments more of a say in the future of the system.

Icann – the official body that ultimately controls the development of the internet thanks to its oversight of web addresses such as .com, .net and .org – said today that it was ending its agreement with the US government.

The deal, part of a contract negotiated with the US department of commerce, effectively pushes California-based Icann towards a new status as an international body with greater representation from companies and governments around the globe.

[...]

The new agreement comes into force immediately. It replaces the old version which had been in place since 1998 and was scheduled to expire today [September 30].

[...]

"We expect more active involvement from governments, a higher level of participation from many governments and we're already hearing about more governments joining the team…

The article makes the kumbaya sound pretty good. But just how will Islamic countries feel about sites such as IBA?

Silence Like a Cancer Grows...

And the words of the Prophet (peachpits be upon him in great quantity and at high velocity) are written on the subway walls...



Randy Taylor reminds us at Northeast Intelligence Network (as do Ibn Warraq and Steve Emerson at Atlas) that we are not together on this thing to the degree that we need to be:

It’s all around us yet we fail to see it. Those of us that do see it don’t really know what to do about it. I know hundreds of people that see it for what it is, know the evil behind it yet don’t know how to go about fighting this demonic plague thrust upon us.

We shout out in small voices to an unknown audience, we write articles and editorials about it, we get supportive email from our readers and listeners yet at the end of the day, we are exactly where we started. We are the lone voices in the wilderness. We are the Paul Revere’s of the 21st century yet we have no organized army to warn. We are the point men in this frontal battle in the upcoming war yet when we look or fall back to warn our squad, they are scattered or cowering in fear from the enemy before us...

Islam has managed to divide the entire population of the United States because we let them. Back in 2001, right after the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, I was proud to be an American. We had just suffered a massive terrorist strike, we all banded together and we all wept together, we all allied together and we all faced a common enemy together. We were one, united and we stood together. It felt real good.

Since then, through careful manipulation of our laws and an effective infiltration of the US political system, combined with a well funded media campaigns Organized Islam has dealt us a serious blow here in our own homeland. We now have Muslims in key political seats, we are facing an election with an undercover Muslim agent looking for the leadership position of this great nation and we are all acting as though this is normal. The average American doesn’t see the looming threat poised by Iran and Syria against Israel and the US and no one is really keeping score for the general public on the Islamic expansion throughout Indonesia, Asia and Africa, the UK, Canada and the US. We are losing ground to organized Islam, we are not gaining.

We are all acting as if this is normal." No, not all of us. But the point Taylor
makes is that far too few of us are paying sufficient attention to realize that
there is nothing "normal" about what is happening. We assume, as we did during the Cold War, that those whose job it is to protect us from attack are on watch and have contained the threat. This is a dangerously optimistic assumption.

We are sheep looking to the shepherds to protect us from the wolves. Problem is that the wolves have managed to sneak past the shepherds and are comfortably nestled in with the flock, even protected by the shepherds. For example, the FBI goes well out of their way to coddle and protect CAIR although it is well established and well documented that CAIR has ties and always had ties to Islamic terrorist groups.

As Taylor points out, the jihadists know that to attack us now would scrap all the progress they have made since 2001, when OBL temporarily monkeywrenched the Islamist schedule by initiating the 9/11 attacks and waking everybody up. They are unlikely to make that mistake again until they have reason to believe they are losing. Meanwhile...

We are making payments to Islam right now for security, in both words and deeds, which is asinine. The government does it, the people do it and the business sector does it. We have America’s Liberty, Freedom and Democracy for sale to the highest bidder. So far, Islam holds the highest bid.