You are Here:
Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan

Author (Read 497 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
Delete the 4th amendment - Its socialist over-regualtion

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #1 on: Apr 15, 2017, 07:59:25 am »
 

Satyagraha

  • Global Moderator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 504
    Posts
It amazes me - STUNS me - that the liberty movement is NOT PROTESTING this loss of 4th Amendment rights!!! It seems to be invisible to them. Nobody is criticizing Trump for his acceptance (in fact, celebration) of continued invasions into our privacy.
“He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.”
Martin Luther King Jr.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #2 on: Apr 15, 2017, 08:10:41 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
It amazes me - STUNS me - that the liberty movement is NOT PROTESTING this loss of 4th Amendment rights!!! It seems to be invisible to them. Nobody is criticizing Trump for his acceptance (in fact, celebration) of continued invasions into our privacy.

I did not want this issue to sink into some memory hole, so I started or bookmarked a thread to collect the better posts.

As to the Alt-Media, its interesting to see who is who
Those that will talk about issues like this, and those who refuse to talk and or just post party political spin.

It is not a Left versus Right issue . . .
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #3 on: Apr 19, 2017, 06:49:43 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
Talk about Dis-Info

Its clear that either Corsi has not got a clue, which he could have googled .. .. ..
Or he is the worst kind of journalist
Or a combination of the above.

Google, Soros Behind “Fake News” on “Internet Privacy”
https://www.infowars.com/google-soros-behind-fake-news-on-internet-privacy/


BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES :
CHECK THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE TERM --0-------> "Net Neutrality"

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #4 on: Apr 20, 2017, 04:36:13 pm »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/04/congress-home-these-next-two-weeks-will-members-hear-you
Congress Is Home These Next Two Weeks. Will Members Hear from You?

Starting today, Congress is closed for the next two weeks so members of Congress can be home. That means if you want to tell your member of Congress how you feel on any specific topic, such as your thoughts on the repeal of your broadband privacy rights or the upcoming debate on network neutrality, you have enormous opportunities that will not last long.

Hearing directly from constituents is the most direct way to influence a member of Congress to change his or her vote as well as highlight issues that are critical to you. These next two weeks present a special opportunity to attend a town hall or district event near you. If you can't make the time to talk to your legislator or his staff in the next two weeks then make a plan to voice your opinion in the coming months. We've written this guide on how best to communicate your voice to Congress.

How to Find Out Where to Meet Your Member of Congress

The best way to meet your federal Representative is to contact the local office by phone and ask where you can meet your elected official. The staff is in a position to inform you where you can meet them because they are given the schedule for their time back home. Most times, this will be at a town hall or at a district event where the member of Congress will provide an update on current events and take questions. Other times, it will be at an event in the district where they deliver a keynote address and stay afterwards to talk to constituents. You should also consider subscribing to the online newsletters of your House member, as well as your state’s two senators, since they often email their local events directly to constituents and subscribers.

Tell Them You Opposed the Broadband Privacy Repeal

Congress was nearly evenly split on whether or not to keep your broadband privacy rights, with 50 votes in favor of repeal against 48 in the Senate and 215 in favor with 205 against in the House. That means the final vote ultimately came down to just eight votes in total (three in the Senate and five in the House). Ultimately, forcing Congress to correct its course would require flipping a very small number of those who sided with the cable and telephone industry over the Internet and Americans who use it.

Some in Congress are staunchly defending their vote by relying on myths or persuasive sounding—but ultimately superficial—claims that their votes to strip the FCC of jurisdiction perversely supported your right to privacy.

For example, expect to hear proponents of repeal to argue that the FTC is better situated than the FCC to handle privacy. It may be confusing to hear that the cable and telephone industry also prefer the FTC, until you find out that the Federal Trade Commission may not have the legal power to do anything: in 2016 AT&T's lawyers were successful in prompting the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to declare that the FTC cannot enforce privacy law on cable and telephone companies because they are common carriers. When lawyers working for the cable and telephone industry attempt to replicate that legal victory across the country in the coming years it will render any contemporary push for FTC oversight really a play for no oversight.

So make no mistake: when you hear from your elected official about how great the FTC is and how they voted to help the FCC become the primary agency in charge of privacy, the fact of the matter is they voted to hamstring the only federal agency that has direct and explicit legal authority to oversee the activities of the cable and telephone industry—the FCC.

The other common refrain from proponents was voting to “level the playing field” because some members of Congress entertain the notion that your social media and email is on the same footing as your cable or telephone company. This ignores the fact that a majority of Americans have only one choice for high speed broadband access, in comparison to many choices among social media and email platforms. This false equivalence between dramatically different industry sectors was contrived by a narrative created by the cable and telephone lobby years ago. Moreover, the FCC is legally restricted to apply privacy protections to just cable and telephone companies because Congress wrote the law to apply to them due to their special position in the market. It has long been a legal tradition that communications platforms (in the past telephone, now broadband) are required to keep private information you disclose when you use the service confidential unless you grant it permission otherwise.

Cable and telephone companies have long wanted to remove legal restrictions that, for decades, had prevented them from selling your personal information to third parties. First, the Internet services you utilize typically do not charge you money, whereas you more than compensate your cable and telephone company with monthly subscription fees.

Tell Them to Protect Internet Freedom

Just last week, it was reported that the new FCC Chairman met with the cable and telephone industry to discuss how best to hand over the Internet to them. According to media accounts, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai intends to surrender the Internet to the cable and telephone industry by no longer enforcing net neutrality protections under Title II of the Telecommunications Act.

The worst part about this plan is the FCC intends to do it in exchange for the cable and telephone industry promising they will not actively harm the free and open Internet for their corporate gain. Do you trust your cable and telephone company to not prioritize their own interests over yours?

Not only are these “promises” dubious as a legal matter, they cannot be held to keeping them once the FCC surrenders. Worst yet, no federal agency will be able to do anything about their activities. It is not surprising that this is the kind of plan that would be the product of a meeting with only cable and telephone executives. Since the FCC Chairman appears to be heading down a very destructive course of action for the free and open Internet, we need to mobilize to pressure Congress to push back on the FCC.

Here is what you need to do to pressure your elected represented to push back on the FCC plan:

    Call your Member of Congress, plus your state’s two Senators.
    Explain that you are a constituent, that you want to hear your Representative (or Senator) speak while home from Washington, and that you’d like the time & place for any town halls scheduled this week.
    Also ask to whom you should address a letter seeking a meeting with a staffer after this week’s recess is over.
    Recruit at least two neighbors, friends, or colleagues who live in your congressional district to join you.
    Attend a town hall, and ask a question of the speaker (ideally while an ally records video). Ask why they want ISPs to have the power to sell your browsing history, and whether they want to force the FCC to hand the Internet over to Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T.
    Publish your video online and share it through social media and encourage your friends to participate.
    If your group of local allies remains fired up and wants to do more, explore the Electronic Frontier Alliance.

Congress as a whole shares responsibility for overseeing and funding the activities of federal agencies. That power offers frequent opportunities to assert influence over the agencies’ plans. That means in the coming months as we fight back on terrible ideas from the FCC, it becomes imperative that you enlist your elected officials as defenders of a free and open Internet and make it explicit that it would be unacceptable for the FCC to stand down in the face of self-serving demands from cable and telephone companies.
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #5 on: Apr 20, 2017, 04:39:36 pm »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
Talk about Dis-Info

Its clear that either Corsi has not got a clue, which he could have googled .. .. ..
Or he is the worst kind of journalist
Or a combination of the above.

Google, Soros Behind “Fake News” on “Internet Privacy”
https://www.infowars.com/google-soros-behind-fake-news-on-internet-privacy/


BEFORE ANYONE REPLIES :
CHECK THE ACCEPTED MEANING OF THE TERM --0-------> "Net Neutrality"

Oh and trying to smear the EFF is utterly despicable, the track record of court cases is a matter of public record.


We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #6 on: Apr 26, 2017, 12:46:04 pm »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts

http://www.engine.is/startups-for-net-neutrality

The success of America’s startup ecosystem depends on an open internet with enforceable net neutrality rules, ensuring that small companies can compete on a level playing field without the threat that their services will be discriminated against by big cable and wireless companies.
On April 26, more than 800 startups, innovators, investors, and entrepreneurial support organizations from all 50 states joined Engine,         Y Combinator, and Techstars in sending a message to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai:
Protect Net Neutrality. Don't Leave America's Innovators Behind.
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #7 on: Apr 29, 2017, 12:55:39 pm »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
Ajit Pai’s Net Neutrality Proposal is Stupid
His explanation is worse.
https://medium.com/@jihoelzer/ajit-pais-net-neutrality-proposal-is-stupid-f192c45b7760



Earlier this week, when new FCC Chairman and long-time net neutrality foe, Ajit Pai released his plan to make the Internet’s equality principle an unenforceable thing of the past, he justified his decision to deregulate the telecommunications industry, by explaining,

    “It’s basic economics. The more heavily you regulate something, the less of it you’re likely to get.”

(Head meet palm.)

Where do I begin?
Let’s be clear, what this is.

This is spin. Mr. Pai (and/or the communications staffer, who wrote his statement) isn’t trying to help us understand the specific regulations he wants to roll back or what he hopes repealing those regulations will achieve. He’s not explaining how this repeal will impact us, nor is he laying out the steps he’s taking to address our concerns. And given how stunningly stupid, this seemingly common sense soundbite is, he’s definitely not trying to advance our appreciation of economic theory.

No, Mr. Pai isn’t doing any of those things. Instead, what he is doing…is attempting to build support for a policy change that will, likely, fundamentally alter the Internet as we know it, by stoking the anti-regulatory feelings of a not insignificant segment of voters (and ultimately their elected representatives), who — he knows — will support stunningly stupid stuff, as long as it’s portrayed as anti-“government control.”
Being against “government regulation” is stupid.

(Yes, I’m going to use that term a lot.) That’s not to say there aren’t government regulations that deserve to be opposed, there are. But, the term “government regulation” covers such a wide number of things, that saying you’re opposed to the concept of “government regulation,” because you don’t support some of them, is a little like saying you’re opposed to the concept of food, because you hate liver and onions. That would be stupid, right?

Opponents of government regulation like to claim their position is supported by sound economic thinking, because, you know, “It’s not a ‘free’ market, if folks aren’t ‘free’ to do whatever they want.” I know, that sounds like it makes sense, but all it really tells you is the person making the argument is either too dimwitted to understand that markets aren’t that simple or is hoping you’re dimwitted enough to be fooled by their clever word play. Just because a word exists in the title of something, does not mean said word tells you everything you need to know about how said something works. (You are aware people get PhDs in economics, right?)

We regulate markets for a reason.

Now, purveyors of that argument are, of course, right in the sense that, it’s important to carefully consider the ramifications of any intervention in the “free market,” because the basic economic principle Mr. Pai is really referring to is the fact that intervening in a market, will ultimately change the way people, companies, etc. engage in that market. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. AND — believe it or not — changing the way market actors engage in the market is basically the whole point of regulation.

What do I mean by that?

Well, first, it’s important to remember that just because we call it a free market, does not mean the market’s free of rules. The word “free” basically just means the market isn’t set up to pick winners and losers (i.e. it’s not rigged to give one company an advantage over others.) So, to put it extra simply:

    A free market creates a level playing field for companies, etc. to compete for business.
    If a company wants to compete for business on that market/playing field, it has to abide by its rules.
    The rules establish the terms of competition.

To understand how that works, consider the NFL.

The league creates a level playing field for football teams to compete, by establishing rules that all competitors must abide by. As long as teams abide by the rules, they’re free to do whatever they believe it takes to win, and the rules ensure that what it takes to win will involve some form of athleticism and mastery of the game we know as football.

If the NFL were to eliminate all rules and “free” teams to employ whatever means they believe necessary to get the ball into the other team’s end zone, teams would ultimately stop competing to run the fastest and throw the farthest and start competing to do stuff like build better vehicles and bigger bombs to blow the other team’s vehicles up. So, again, the NFL sets and enforces rules that ensure teams are competing to be the best at the game we know as football, and they continuously amend and add to those rules to ensure that remains the case. (Like, for example, the league instituted a salary cap to ensure teams don’t start competing to “buy” the better team, and it recently introduced a concussion protocol to get teams to stop pursuing victory at the expense of their players’ health.)

Markets work in much the same way.

Although, instead of ensuring participants compete to be the best at football, market rules/regulations are generally established to ensure participants are competing to offer the best product at the best price. And, again, absent those rules, that doesn’t necessarily happen on its own.

For example, before the Affordable Care Act became law, health insurance companies didn’t so much compete to offer the best health insurance at the best price, they competed to be the best at only insuring healthy people, who wouldn’t need much health care. But now, thanks to the regulation requiring insurance companies to cover anyone who wants to sign up, regardless of their health status, insurance companies have to compete to offer a quality product that keeps their customers healthy. Does this regulation make it harder for insurance companies to turn a profit? Yes. And does that fact mean, there will, likely, be fewer insurance companies? Yes. But is it really better to have more companies in the market, if those companies are doing things we don’t want them to do?

“More” isn’t always better.

I ‘m sure there would be more pharmaceutical companies, if the government would just stop requiring them to demonstrate that their products are safe and effective. Because, it would be a lot cheaper and WAY more profitable if they could just market drugs, without having to worry about side effects and whether or not the drugs will actually do the thing they’ll say they do. There would also, no doubt, be more manufacturing in the U.S., if the government would just let them go back to the days when they didn’t have to care about worker safety and could force full time employees to put in 100 hour works weeks (which was, in fact, the average work week for manufacturing employees in the U.S. before Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act.) I’m sure there would be more housing construction, if the government would stop insisting houses be built to not fall down. Hell, we might even see a resurgence of plantations, if the government would just let folks keep slaves again. (Just to be clear, I AM NOT arguing for that.)

Do you really trust Comcast?

Mr. Pai argues that industry should be allowed to police itself, but you don’t have to look back very far to see that history isn’t exactly filled with examples of humans doing the right thing, when doing the wrong thing will make them more money. Yes, there are, of course, people in this world, who will always choose to do the right thing, but as long as others are free to do the wrong thing, then those people will lose. Also, seeing as Mr. Pai is basically talking about cable companies, can ANYONE say that they genuinely trust their cable company to do the right thing, if someone isn’t forcing them to do it. (And — to be clear — that’s what you are doing, if you fall for his “government regulations suck” soundbite.)

Net Neutrality is important (like really).

Net neutrality — the principle that says, internet service providers must treat all content the same– is a central tenet of the Internet as we know it. This one principle has launched countless careers and made untold innovations possible by making it possible for innovators to sink and swim — not in accordance with their ability to grease palms — but on the strength of their creation’s merits. Do Internet Service Providers want to abandon Net Neutrality, so they can start charging sites more money for better placement? Of course, they do. They’d probably make even more money doing that than they do charging customers monthly modem fees. But do we as a society of innovators and consumers of innovation want that to happen? I think the answer is, “no, we do not,” and that most of us do not mind if regulations result in fewer ISPs, as long as said regulations ensure that zero ISP’s are actively violating the integrity of the very thing we’re paying them to access.

So, long story short, Mr. Pai is correct that regulating a thing tends to result in less of said thing, but he seems to miss the point that THAT is the very reason we want these regulations in place. We don’t want the cable industry to be able to do MORE things we don’t want them to do, namely undermine Net Neutrality.
Aren’t you tired of being played for a fool?

Mr. Pai is, of course, not the first policy maker to try and build support for a position with a grossly-oversimplified-seemingly-sensible-mischaracterization-of-a-far-more-nuanced-and-complex-issue-that-actually-obscures-the-real-issues-at-hand. In fact, it’s such a commonplace tactic, that some folks will even tell you, it’s the “only” way to build support for a policy. “If you’re explaining, you’re losing,” they like to say. And they’re right, it works. Millions of Americans, for example, decided they were against the Affordable Care Act, because they’re against “government control” and “death panels,” just like millions cheered Bernie Sanders, as he seemingly argued that the President of the United States shouldn’t talk to Wall Street. (Yes, it’s a problem, if he/she ONLY talks to Wall Street, but do you really see nothing wrong with our government shunning such a huge segment of our economy? Because, no offence, it’s a stupid suggestion.)

Personally, I disagree that this is the “only” way to build public support for a policy, although I do think it’s the only way a lot of folks know how to build said support. I also think that, as John Oliver has demonstrated on this and other issues, taking the time to help the public really understand something yields far more powerful/influential support than trying to con your folks into backing you with soundbites. But doing that sort of thing is hard and takes time and, the sad fact is: as long as, we as a society allow ourselves to be swayed by simple sounding soundbites, the more we encourage leaders to employ them. And the more we encourage them, the less the words we use to talk about politics and policy will have anything to do with the reality of those things, until — — as is increasingly the case — what we think we know about our government and the policies it enacts bears no resemblance to reality.

So, stop falling for this shit, OK?

Or — at the very least — don’t let Ajit Pai’s con you into letting him gut Net Neutrality.

The FCC is now accepting public comments on its proposal. If you’d like to leave a comment, TechCrunch explains how you can do that here: https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/27/how-to-comment-on-the-fccs-proposal-to-revoke-net-neutrality/
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2017, 04:00:32 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
TheRegister
It's a question worth asking:
Why is the FCC boss being such a jerk?

The answer – because net-neutrality slayer Ajit Pai wants to stay in charge
https://www.theregister.co.uk/Author/2886
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/04/28/fcc_chairman_ajit_pai/


Special report This week, Ajit Pai, chairman of America's broadband watchdog, decided to reignite the contentious debate over net neutrality – by proposing scrapping the country's open internet safeguards.

The move was not unexpected. But what was surprising was how FCC chair Pai decided to relay it: rather than outline the logical policy reasons for why such a big change was necessary, he instead embarked on a fact-free, frequently misleading and highly partisan speech that bordered on a rant, even going so far as to mock and dismiss anyone who opposed his idea.

Interest in the decision was significant but rather than talk to any number of telecom policy experts or reporters about the topic, Pai instead decided to give an exclusive interview with Breitbart – the hard-right website masterminded by odious presidential Svengali Steve Bannon. An odd choice.

Pai has been avoiding interviews for months with journalists who cover communications, technology, and policy, only turning up to softball interviews with outlets that he knows will praise him or light TV shows more interested in fashion trends than telecom policy.

Earlier this month, when tech scribe Jon Brodkin complained he had been asking for an interview with Pai for months, Pai responded on Twitter with: "Can't imagine why," alongside screengrabs of the reporter's critical posts about him.

When Pai's not repeating conspiratorial talking points, he accuses individuals of being socialists and lovers of the Venezuelan regime, advocates of net neutrality as being out-and-out liars, and a huge percentage of American citizens as being hypocritical and anti-free speech.

In short, the head of a federal regulator, who has to oversee serious and complex tasks and find the optimal solution to a wide range of issues that affect tens of millions of people, is increasingly acting like a dick. But why?

Where it went wrong

When the net neutrality rules were passed in 2015, the two Republicans on the five-person committee of the FCC, Pai and colleague Michael O'Rielly, voted against it.

The vote acted as a kind of partisan watershed at the federal regulator: the organization had always been political but generally worked hard to reach consensus. Differences of opinion were largely the result of personal belief and philosophy, not party political stances.

That all changed when President Obama made a highly unusual public intervention in a YouTube video in November 2014, in which he urged the FCC to reclassify broadband providers as "Title II" providers – something that would treat them as utility providers rather than free market companies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKcjQPVwfDk


To Republicans, especially on the far right, this was everything they had been complaining about for the previous six years. It was direct interference in a largely independent organization. It was government regulation writ large. It was Obama. It was just plain wrong.

And worst of all, the FCC – which had been wavering between Title II and a hybrid solution devised by then-FCC chairman Tom Wheeler that would split internet access into "wholesale" and "retail" – did what Obama proposed, and went for Title II. The Republicans blew a gasket. And as a result, politics flooded into the watchdog.

From that point, with love lost between the FCC's three Democrats and their Republican counterparts, as well as between the FCC majority and the cable industry that the regulator had overseen for decades, the rupture intensified.

Egged on by his "special counsel" and later "counselor to the chairman," Gigi Sohn, Wheeler proposed a whole range of new rules that went directly against Big Cable's interests: expanded data privacy rights; an overhaul of backhaul competition; forced public disclosure of broadband specs and data; and – most infuriatingly for Big Cable – an effort to end their multi-billion-dollar cable box rental rip-off.

Blow up

The result was that Big Cable, with its army of lobbyists and hefty war chests, gave up even communicating with the Democrats and focused their attention on Republicans. The result was rhetoric that grew hotter and crazier by the day.

At a Congressional hearing, the FCC's commissioners suddenly started trading blows. At one, Ajit Pai – who had always used colorful language but had really started moving away from considered lawyer speak and into political speechmaking – began feeding the partisan monster.

The FCC's media relations office had been "transformed from a shop of career staffers dedicated to representing the interests of the agency as a whole into a propaganda machine for the Chairman's Office," he railed. The staff was feeding information to the press and supporters and leaving the commissioner in the dark, he complained.

This was catnip to Republicans, and before you knew it, Pai found himself pulled into the inner circles of Congressional politics, trading information and issuing statements that reflected the Republican party line.

In turn, what he told Congressional Republicans started being relayed publicly by senior politicians. Pai became their man in the FCC and a "rising star."

The collusion became so obvious that Senate Democrats officially asked Pai and his Republican colleague to hand over emails covering their interactions over concerns that what they were doing was seriously improper. Pai and O'Rielly simply refused to hand anything over.

And that was the point at which Ajit Pai started becoming a real dick.

Not all bad, though

Which is a shame because Pai had identified a lot of the issues with the FCC, particularly its outdated procedures. He railed, quite correctly, about the ludicrous situation where people were unable to see FCC rules until after they had been approved.

He also flagged the ridiculous situation where even after they had been approved, the FCC chair can make changes to them. And he noted, with one eyebrow raised heavily, that there had been a very significant change to the net neutrality rules at the last minute that appears to be solely in response to a letter sent to the FCC from a "very large California company."

He was referring to Google, which had managed to use its eerily close relationship to the White House to extend its tentacles into every part of the federal government.

Despite there being strict rules about what the FCC and its staff were allowed to share outside the regulator, it was abundantly clear from the letter that Google's policy team had got hold of some very detailed information. It smacked of special treatment.

Pai's colleague Mike O'Rielly was also flagging problems with how the FCC was run, but was repeatedly hitting a brick wall of staff obfuscation. Both were being frozen out, and Pai started complaining that Wheeler wasn't even bothering to pretend he was considering Pai's and O'Rielly's legitimate policy concerns, but just plowed ahead knowing he had the votes to pass it regardless.

Aside from a few stage-managed efforts to show that the FCC Commissioners were getting on just fine, the federal regulator had been sucked into partisan politics and all the hyperbole and pontificating that comes with it.

And then the election happened.

Welcome President Trump

Pretty much everyone in Washington assumed that Hillary Clinton was going to become president. And that meant that things would have stayed largely the same at the FCC.

Republicans had been blocking the reappointment of Jessica Rosenworcel as a Democratic FCC commissioner for pure politics – she was a very qualified and highly respected. The Republicans also wanted to force Tom Wheeler out of his job as chairman of the FCC.

With Clinton in charge, she would have probably got Rosenworcel back into the regulator, and named a new chairman, and the watchdog's ruling committee would have settled into a 3-2 Democrat majority.

As for Pai: his term actually expired in June 2016, although he is able to stay on the FCC until the end of 2017, at which point he needs Senate confirmation. The Democrats would almost certainly have refused to reappoint him because of his partisan comments. And net neutrality – already backed up by the courts – would have remained in place.

But then Trump won.

Having debated whether to refuse to stand down and simply stay on at the FCC to block any efforts to overturn his earlier decisions, Tom Wheeler finally decided that he would follow tradition and leave when the new administration took over.

And then there were three

That left Pai, O'Rielly and Democrat Mignon Clyburn on the FCC. And no decision as to who would be chair.

Pai desperately wanted the chairmanship, and so in his bid to get the role started adopting Trumpisms: furious denunciations combined with "I alone can fix this" exclamations of problems and his solutions.

And it worked. Three days after his inauguration, President Trump was persuaded by his FCC advisors to select Ajit Pai as permanent chair, rather than give him a temporary title or name a new chair.

It was an easy call in the end: Pai had made big play about wanting to kill off net neutrality, he has displayed both aggressive partisanship and a willingness to tear things up, but most usefully, it meant Trump could simply move on to other things because the Republicans had a 2-1 majority.

But Pai's time on the FCC will end at the end of this year unless he can do two things: get Trump's approval for his reappointment, and get the Senate to approve his candidacy.

It is an enormous fork in Pai's career and life.

Dear Donald...

Needless to say, Pai has done all he can to ingratiate himself with Trump. In the first seven weeks as chairman, he killed off the cable industry's most-hated FCC plan of squashing its cable box scam and made huge play of changing a few not-very-important rules as a sign of his red-tape slashing agenda.

He then railed against the former administration while announcing his own new transparency plans – from now on, FCC papers would be available in advance and made public.

And then he took the decision to kill off already-approved data privacy rules: something that delighted not just cable companies but also Congressional Republicans.

And just for good measure, he made repeated but vague claims that he would shut down net neutrality – while carefully avoiding questions and journalists who might press him on the details.

And, yet again, it paid off. Pai had a meeting with Trump at the White House to discuss the data privacy rules where he pressed the president for a second term. One part of the payoff: a piece of legislation going through Congress to kill the "Obama era" rules once and for all. Soon after, Trump renominated Pai for another term at the FCC.

"I am deeply honored to have been nominated by President Trump to serve a second term on the Federal Communications Commission," Pai said in a statement. "If I am fortunate to be confirmed by the Senate, I will continue to work with my colleagues to connect all Americans with digital opportunity, foster innovation, protect consumers, promote public safety, and make the FCC more open and transparent to the American people."

And so now all Pai has to do is get Senate confirmation.

Final hurdle

Which should be an easy thing, in theory, but even with both houses of Congress having Republican majorities is far from a certain thing, thanks in no small part to Trump's difficult and unstable nature.

It is all too possible that between now and his confirmation hearing, Senate Republicans sour on Trump and anyone associated too closely with him pays the price. And so Pai has now turned his attention to the Republican party.

And that explains two things: one, why he allowed his significant net neutrality speech to be arranged by a third party – FreedomWorks – and why he let no fewer than five other speakers get up in front of him and not say much except that his plan was great.

And two, it explains why Pai has started talking like the worst sort of partisan politician rather than the head of a federal regulator: mocking opponents, making wild and inaccurate claims that "play to the base," even asserting, laughably, that the only reason the Title II classification was imposed in the first place was because of partisan politics.

"Days after a disappointing 2014 midterm election," Pai said, "and in order to energize a dispirited base, the White House released an extraordinary YouTube video instructing the FCC to implement Title II regulations. This was a transparent attempt to compromise the agency's independence. And it worked."

The words should have stuck in his throat. But Pai can only see his shining future ahead of him. In the Court of King Donald, that means having to copy the leader and follow the court intrigue.

Was it merely a coincidence that days after Matt Drudge – a man who runs a poorly designed right-wing link farm – appeared with Trump in the White House, Pai inserts mention of him in his speech, even though it had literally nothing to do with what he was talking about? No, it was not.

And you can expect to see a lot more of it from Pai. A lot more of Pai the Dick, instead of Pai the Policywonk. We'd love to think that this behavior will revert once Pai is confirmed and in place for another five years – but the reality is that it won't.

We now have the Telco Trump in place at the FCC and, like with the president, we will all just have to hope that not too much damage is caused by their failure to consider others, and their failure to do the right thing rather than the most popular thing among their core supporters. ®
If he can go down one path, he becomes chair of a powerful federal regulator for the next five years and from there he can leave to become a massively well-paid lobbyist, quite possibly the next head of the cable industry's main lobbying body.

If he goes down the other path, he is a short-term FCC chair, booted off in less than a year and having to negotiate his way back into a law firm or the legal department of a big telc
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2017, 04:23:47 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
Since this forum is not JonesTown drunk on Right Wing Koolaid, I'll briefly mention

FreedomWorks
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/FreedomWorks

The Koch brothers . . . .


That you never ever hear about the Koch Brothers on the Alex Jones Radio Show - YOU SHOULD BE ALARMED
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #10 on: May 18, 2017, 11:41:12 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
Let me put it this way,

Net Neutrality means All Data travelling the Internet is treated equally, without prejudice.

Infowars is now supporting the idea, that "All Data packets are equal but some Data packets are more equal than others"  to update Animal Farm.




We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Trump’s war on net neutrality
« Reply #11 on: May 19, 2017, 05:17:24 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts


RT America

Trump’s war on net neutrality

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqT7O_H2-5I

Published on Apr 4, 2017

Personal data is less protected than ever. On this episode of PoliticKING, Devin Coldewey, writer at TechCrunch, and the ACLU's Neema Singh Guliani, weigh in on the controversial new repeal allowing internet service providers to collect private data without consent, and how these providers use the information about you to make money. Then, former congressman Trey Radel (R-Florida) opens up about his past, politics and family – and the cultural divide that’s ripping America apart.

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts


The Daily Sheeple


Here's What You Need To Know

Only 4 minutes . . . . in plain english

We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2017, 09:07:11 am »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts

Dear FCC: We See Through Your Plan to Roll Back Real Net Neutrality
Commentary by Corynne McSherry
May 18, 2017
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/05/dear-fcc-we-see-through-your-plan-roll-back-real-net-neutrality

Pretty much everyone says they are in favor of net neutrality–the idea that service providers shouldn’t engage in data discrimination, but should instead remain neutral in how they treat the content that flows over their networks. But actions speak louder than words, and today’s action by the FCC speaks volumes. After weeks of hand-waving and an aggressive misinformation campaign by major telecom companies, the FCC has taken the first concrete step toward dismantling the net neutrality protections it adopted two years ago.

Specifically, the FCC is proposing a rule that would reclassify broadband as an “information service” rather than a “telecommunications service.” FCC Chairman Ajit Pai claims that this move would protect users, but all it would really do is protect Comcast and other big ISPs by destroying the legal foundation for net neutrality rules. Once that happened, it would only be a matter of time before your ISP had more power than ever to shape the Internet.

Here’s why: Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a service can be either a “telecommunications service” that lets the subscriber choose the content they receive and send without interference from the service provider; or it can be an “information service,” like cable television, that curates and selects what subscribers will get. “Telecommunications services” are subject to nondiscrimination requirements–like net neutrality rules. “Information services” are not.

For years, the FCC incorrectly classified broadband access as an “information service,” and when it tried to apply net neutrality rules to broadband providers, the courts struck them down. Essentially, the D.C. Circuit court explained that the FCC can’t exempt broadband from nondiscrimination requirements by classifying it as an information service, but then impose those requirements anyway.

The legal mandate was clear: if we wanted meaningful open Internet rules to pass judicial scrutiny, the FCC had to reclassify broadband as a telecom service. Reclassification also just made sense: broadband networks are supposed to deliver information of the subscriber’s choosing, not information curated or altered by the provider.

It took an Internet [urlhttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/fcc-votes-net-neutrality-big-win]uprising[/url] to persuade the FCC to reclassify. But in the end we succeeded: in 2015 the FCC reclassified broadband as a telecom service. Resting at last on a proper legal foundation, its net neutrality rules finally passed judicial scrutiny PDF.

Given this history, there’s no disguising what the new FCC majority is up to. If it puts broadband back in the “info service” category and then tries to appease critics by adopting meaningful net neutrality rules, we’ll be in the same position we were three years ago: Comcast will take the FCC to court–and Comcast will win. It’s simple: you can’t reclassify and keep meaningful net neutrality rules. Reclassification means giving ISPs a free pass for data discrimination.

Chairman Pai’s claim that this move is good for users because it will spur investment in broadband infrastructure is a cynical one at best. Infrastructure investment has gone up since the 2015 Order, ISP profits are growing exponentially, and innovation and expression are flourishing.

At the same time, too many Americans have only one choice for high speed broadband. There are good reasons to worry about FCC overreach regulation in many contexts, but the fact is the U.S. broadband market is now excessively concentrated and lacks real choice, and there are few real options to prevent ISPs from abusing their power. In this environment, repealing the simple, light-touch rules of the road we just won would give ISPs free reign to use their position as Internet gatekeepers to funnel customers to their own content, thereby distorting the open playing field the Internet typically provides, or charge fees for better access to subscribers. Powerful incumbent tech companies will be able to buy their way into the fast lane, but new ones won’t.  Nor will activists, churches, libraries, hospitals, schools or local governments.

We can’t let that happen. So, Team Internet, we need you to step up once again and tell the FCC that it works for the American people, not Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T.  Go to dearfcc.org and tell the FCC not to undermine real net neutrality protections.

https://dearfcc.org/
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

Re: Net Neutrality and Privacy concerns: FCC to FTC & Trumps's plan
« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2017, 12:55:10 pm »
 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

 

EvadingGrid

  • Rat Catcher (retired)
  • Administrator
  • Mega InfoWarrior
  • *****
  • 2493
    Posts
More proof that Infowars has gone Dark Side, this time its Jerome Corsi

For the less technically minded, Jerome Corsi thinks ALL your internet data should be For Sale at an ISP level.
To defend the sale of every single byte of your data, he smears by using the Trigger Word "Soros" and pathetic Strawman arguments.

Net Neutrality is the journey between You and the Websites you visit, this simple concept is either beyond his IQ or he is simply a liar.
   

Soros and Google ‘AstroTurf’ Net Neutrality Meeting to Keep Censorship
Former FCC official working as paid lobbyist shill for Soros-Google Internet censorship rules
Jerome Corsi | Infowars.com - June 26, 2017
https://www.infowars.com/soros-and-google-astroturf-net-neutrality-meeting-to-preserve-censorship/
We are all running on Gods laptop.
The problem is the virus called the Illuminati.
 

 

Powered by EzPortal