This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
FCC Votes In Favor Of Obama's Net Neutrality - Has The Slippery Slope To Web Censorship Begun?
"An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life," according to President Obama and it appears his perspective on the heavy hand of government regulation inserting itself into the last bastion of freedom and dynamism in the US economy, is how best to achieve "openness." Having pressured FCC's Tom Wheeler, the vote just came down: U.S. FCC APPROVES NET NEUTRALITY INTERNET RULES IN 3-2 VOTE. While potentially good for a consumer's pocketbook, the handing over of "fair-use" decision to the government, as we previously noted, could be the first step on a slippery slope to increased censorship.
FCC Votes...
- *FCC ADOPTS NET-NEUTRALITY RULE BACKED BY OBAMA
- *INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS MUST TREAT WEB TRAFFIC EQUALLY
- *COMCAST, AT&T, VERIZON AMONG COMPANIES REGULATED UNDER RULES
- *NETFLIX, TWITTER HAD SOUGHT FCC REGULATIONS
* * *
The internet of political things
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 26, 2015
* * *
U.S. regulators invoked broad powers to ensure that Web traffic for all users is treated equally, adopting net-neutrality rules that Bloomberg reports, supporters say will preserve a wide-open Internet and that opponents vow to fight in court...
The measure approved Thursday by the Federal Communications Commission prohibits companies such as AT&T Inc. and Comcast Corp. from blocking or slowing online traffic and from offering faster service in return for payment. It also brings wireless Internet service fully under the rules for the first time.
The 3-2 vote on party lines by FCC commissioners enshrines a regulation backed by the Obama administration and opposed by cable and telephone companies, which say the rules risk stifling a fast-growing Internet and will lead to rate regulation.
“The Internet is too important to allow broadband providers to make the rules,” said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, a Democrat appointed by Obama, in comments as the commission prepared to vote in its crowded meeting room in Washington.
...
The vote “imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have,” said Ajit Pai, a Republican commissioner who campaigned in TV and radio appearances and on social media against the rules.
...
The FCC has “pried open the door to heavy-handed government regulation in a space celebrated for its free enterprise,” Michael Powell, president of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association trade group that has Comcast among its members, said in an e-mailed statement. “The commission has breathed new life into the decayed telephone regulatory model and applied it to the most dynamic, free-wheeling and innovative platform in history.”
Wheeler disagreed with characterizations that government is imposing utility-style regulation.
* * *
Here's a concern about what the FCC just passed from one of the smartest technical people I know: pic.twitter.com/IcLLD1ZV5O
— Michael Krieger (@LibertyBlitz) February 26, 2015
- 22204 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -


.
I just wonder how long it will be boefore Tyler gets a little letter delivered to him to quit this blog or to make sure the Communist point of view is equally spewed....I give it before the next elections for sure...
So the FCC gets to vote on what authority they have? Interesting..
Some where along the lines of Doing God's work ring a bell? The Tribe of course.
If Soros wanted net neutrality, you know it's bad.
is that maggot still alive?
Yes he is...eating babies does wonders for a satanist' life expectancy !
Just look at what it did for the Queen mum.
..."could be the begining of censoring the web..." of course it is !
I prefer to call it "neutering the web"...much more accurate.
Well it's been fun...I'll miss you, ZH, BIN, SGT, Rense, Icke, et al.
The FCC wants all blogs' to shill for the goobament like, say, the HuffPo does.
No thanks, I'll use my new found free time to read the newly re-released Mein Kampf !
What are you talking about?? Comcast Att and Verizon bring free enterprise to mind. Where have you spent your lives, these are the biggest oldest most craze monoploies we have. They never bring anything new to market and hold up progress as long as possible. They should not be allowed to slow down one user over another, they are raping us now.
Overall we are falling behind other countries in our build out of the internet connections do to these bastards.
Howie
Fixing fascism with socialism is never a good idea. And no our internet is not behind other countries most of which are tiny little shitholes with the equivalent of tin cans tied together.
So what if I setup my own internet between a bunch of local computers? Is the fcc going to regulate that?
Exactly what I was thinking - neighborhood wireless mesh.
Nope, they'll just zap you dead via your smart meter.
...while taking a nice hot bath.
Tom Wheeler was a lobbying whore for the cable companies.
Cable companies such as Time Warner, who raised my broadband rates rates four-fold, while cutting my speed from 30 to 15 MB/s, in the last four years. And Wheeler's puppetmaster added a $6/month charge for an antique modem that I was originally told came free with the service.
Wheeler was also a top campaign money bundler for Obama.
Obama squeezed his boy Wheeler hard for this plan.
Therefore, this plan will work out splendidly for corporate fascism and Obama censorship, and very badly for Americans.
Seems google comcast et al probably wrote the regs.Bit like big healthcare wrote the ACA.
In your face fascism , not communism.
Government can now ban gun sales over the Internet.
The fcc can't possibly know whats happening in the millions of computers that route internet traffic. This is just going to be a bunch of jobs for some crony fat cats relatives and more luxury homes in the beltway.
And the Repugnantcan controlled Congress was..........................where?
More importantly, what are we going to do about it?
There hasn't been two parties since........geez, maybe since Lincoln when you think about it.
Everyone, please host a freenet node. Can't censor what you can't decrypt.
LOL,
The NSA will just ban anyone who dissents or criticizes the socialist jew media, the democrat party or the jew controlled FED
in 3,2,1.....
Time to hit the streets.
Combine this with the fact that the ATF is "proposing" to ban M855 5.56mm 62 grain steel penetrator ammunition from civilian use, and you now have the visible makings of a tyrannical government.
Those who know that the 2nd Amendment is a hedge against a tyrannical government, also must realize that if we, as civilians, are not allowed (by government regulation) to have the same ammunition as our military, know that this is a Bridge Too Far. It is akin to having fought the American Revolution with pistols, whilst the British had their muskets.
Remember this:
Those "hoping" for the 2016 elections to change things;
Hope Leads to Complacency, and Complacency to Tyranny
300 win mag will fuck their shit up
This is still unclear. In the beginning of the article you stated: "The concept of “net neutrality” describes how broadband access across the internet currently works. Essentially, the ISPs are not allowed to discriminate amongst the content being delivered to the consumer."
Then a few paragraphs down you quoted from WSJ: "If the rule is adopted, winners would be the major broadband providers that would be able to charge both consumers and content providers for access to their networks."
Aren't those two comments contradictory? Isn't charging a premium for "fast lanes" the same as discrimination? Even the media can't spell this out correctly, so how the hell are the common folk supposed to understand it? Oh yeah, they aren't supposed to be able to.... So "net neutrality" means nothing except gov't. control and regulation of the internet. This can only end well.
They will push this until websites are licensed and fees are paid, speech will be regulated. If they don't like what you're doing they just pull your license. These people are fucking demons.
In June 2007, Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) said, "It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine,"[25] an opinion shared by his Democratic colleague, Senator John Kerry
On June 24, 2008, U.S. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the Speaker of the House at the time, told reporters that her fellow Democratic Representatives did not want to forbid reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, adding "the interest in my caucus is the reverse." When asked by John Gizzi of Human Events, "Do you personally support revival of the 'Fairness Doctrine?'", the Speaker replied "Yes."[28]
On October 22, 2008, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) told a conservative talk radio host in Albuquerque, New Mexico:
“I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. All I’m saying is that for many, many years we operated under a Fairness Doctrine in this country, and I think the country was well-served. I think the public discussion was at a higher level and more intelligent in those days than it has become since."
On December 15, 2008, U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) told The Daily Post in Palo Alto, California that she thought it should also apply to cable and satellite broadcasters.
“I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone"
On February 11, 2009, Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told Press, "...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again." Later in response to Press's assertion that "...they are just shutting down progressive talk from one city after another," Senator Harkin responded, "Exactly, and that's why we need the fair—that's why we need the Fairness Doctrine back."[31] Former President Bill Clinton has also shown support for the Fairness Doctrine. During a February 13, 2009, appearance on the Mario Solis Marich radio show, Clinton said:
“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side, because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows.”
Clinton cited the "blatant drumbeat" against the stimulus program from conservative talk radio, suggesting that it doesn't reflect economic reality.
More often than not, seizing control occurs in baby steps. There will be more changes down the road to enhance governance over the internet. Surprised taxes haven't occurred yet.
Does anyone have a Carrier Pigeon?
This is the third time the FCC has tried to pass Net Neutrality rules. The first two times the courts threw them out. I expect that the courts will throw them out for the third time.
yup
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it, away from the fog of controversy"
- Started Every Bad Idea Ever
thankfully this will be tied up in courts for years
Basically, the oligarchs buy the highway so they can be highwaymen. The internet was too free to keep going like this. Just like Napster. The oligarchs have to get paid always.
I'm just confused now honestly... net neutrality, at least as it was originally defined, meant keeping the internet unmolested. there was the whole slowdown of netflix which prompted this action, forcing them to pay the ISP for their traffic to go through. That's honestly bullshit. Bandwidth charges are already being paid for if you are running servers. If this means that it's now a "utility" that forces ISPs to open their networks up to 3rd party players, then that's a good thing.... of course, now the waters are muddied, so who the fuck knows what this thing actually is or says... in true US fashion of course.
This is the same playbook as ACA. Healtcare et. al. lobby writes the bill and get's to blame socialist Obama for raising rates while they pocket the profits. Obama the socialist gets more power so he pushes for it.
Telecoms write this FCC regulation and get to blame government for raising rates while they pocket the profits. Obama the socialist gets more power so he pushes for it.
Rinse repeat.
There's always hope? Broadband backers push GOP-led Congress to overturn FCC on net neutrality | Computerworld
Heavily funded by George Soros, so you know it ain't nothing nice: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2015/02/25/soros-ford-founda...
A stellar example of that Zio-predator's "Open Society."
The internet infrastructure is placed, in significant part, by government force over private property rights via eminent domain to private company monopolies and duopolies. There is an obvious and virtually insurmountable impracticality of the enormous expense of going around those pipes to provide other paths of service for hypothetical alternatives to the existing pipe owners charging who they wish what they wish. So, we are in a position of lawfully restraining their abuse of the monopoly/duopoly on one hand, or just trusting them that these corporate entities will not engage in the same agenda-driven censorship many fear of the government.
I do not trust Verizon or Cox Cable more than I trust the FCC. (or, the NSA for that matter)
Considering the speeds that LTE is offering over wireless, the "last mile" that the regulation primarily concerns, is becoming less and less relevant.
More wireless operators + existing cable operators = choice for internet service providers.
This is a blatant and unnecessary piece of regulation. My internet bill isn't the bad thing, it's my cable.
I trust business, even big business, over big government any day of the week -- at least those businesses not wholly owned and protected by the same said big government.
Of course, real net neutrality is now dead.
Forget that every customer of an ISP (individual or website no matter how big you are) already pays for the entire internet. An ISP can't sell it's customers a connection on the front-end if the ISP doesn't buy enough back-end capacity to provide adequate service levels. The ISP has to purchase connections to the internet backbone suppliers who in-turn have to purchase connections to other backbone suppliers.
If it was about net neutrality, it would have taken 2 pages.
The courts have struck down previous attempts by the communist control freaks to do this. I can only hope the courts will prevail again. I really don't care about the "all parties all the same" bullshit on this one. The repubs never bring this sort of thing to the fore. It's a Demonrat's wet dream to control behavior, speech and opposition to their controlled media. Whether it's the "fairness doctrine" - Demonrat concept in its entirety or this "net neutrality", none of this happens with repub majority, like it or not, it's the facts. No, it doesn't mean the repubs are somehow the savior of our lives, but in this area of policy, they are.
Yeah the republicans would never do anything like control what plants you can or can't put into your body.
Ass.
I was specifically referring to this policy moron.
Not only that, but marijuana was made illegal by Demonrats (FDR, look it up you dumbass)
Libertarians have been the only ones pushing for drug reform, many of whom populate the fringes of the republicans not the democratrs.
The ass is you.
The Stupid Party did not have the balls to even make noises about this. A buch of jelly balled eunuchs.
Look at your phone bill...and all those service charges and government taxes will be coming soon to an internet provider you use....and I even think you will have to buy a license to be able to write on the internet....it will become a huge money maker for the government.....and write something wrong...and fines will be imposed.....
Good one: turn people away from the net and see what happens to "tech" sector. But few will turn away as long as they have their social media and gaming addictions fed.
A net neutral presentation:
Fuck the FCC, Soros, Obama, Jarret, the Democratic party, the Republicant party and the Ford Foundation for this.
Also, bless the darlings; they only have our best interests at heart, I'm sure.
the last time we had presidents who over stepped congress and courts we had wars..lincoln and civil war, roosevelt and ww II, this thing in the whitehouse is going to continue overstepping until he is stopped.
americans have thrown out the Dems from control of both house and senate, for a reason. The people see the threat of this racist dictator wannabe. the press and msm hide this fact but folks we in America know this president is a threat to our freedom like no other.
Going after ammo today as well, evidently.
Isn't the main purpose of owning a firearm for hunting? Then why would anybody need armor-piercing bullets, except to hunt deers wearing armor?
see amendment number two and think about the implications fuckface. Also, see the afganistan war when you bring up your "tanks and helicopters will overmatch any ar 15 toting citizen" argument. Consider losing to stone aged people and then consider taking on Americans in their own land.
Did whoever wrote this post even read what they linked to? In the link Mike is for net neutrality rather than letting the big companies control things and squash the little guys.
Aside from the fact the government always fucks things up, I really don't know why anyone would have an issue with net neutrality (the thoery of it anyway) unless they are tied to the telecom and cable industries and like the idea of some services being throttled unless they pay up. A site like ZH could have been screwed over yet now (in theory) they won't. People find that bad? Weird.
Yeah, right, just the way AARP, The AMA and Insurance companies were for Obamacare. Think about it....this is a corrupt admin and congress that is taking EVERYTHING away from us. Everything.
Loregnum, let's explore this issue in some detail. In my State of New York, a finite number of ISP providers are allowed to operate due to regulatory requirements just like in the healthcare industry. How did that come about?
The answer is companies like Verizon, Time Warner, Frontier, etc. lobbied the government to split the state into regions so they can monopolize Internet service. State government bureaucracies have helped to keep consumer prices high by restricting competition. It's the corporate collusion with government that is the problem. I'll bet the same thing happens in the majority of other States as well.
Do you really think the federal government will make things better? I don't. Service will be worse because they will regulate the small provider out of existence. Be prepared to pay higher monthly fees for your first amendment right to free speech.
This article was alot longer and more informative when it first appeared. Where'd it go? Censored already?
Just as with changing our immigration laws a certain group worked from 1880 until it won its victory in 1965, so in like manner, they've now won another weapon to destroy the historic American nation.
From January 2015:
NEW OBAMA PUSH FOR GOVT-RUN INTERNET
From 2005:
China's model for a censored web
And from this week:
Obama Internet regulation plan could give 'government wider authority over television programming'
Plan Could Lead to UN Takeover of Internet
SOROS CASH BEHIND PUSHTrue name of this Hungarian Jew is György Schwartz
Is the FCC Lawless?
Commisioner: 'Independence of agency has been compromised'
GOV'T NET GRAB GOING TOO FAR!
ITS COMING!!
Ban Racists from Social Media, Anti-Semitism Report Says
BBC News, February 9, 2015
Cameron is part Jewish
Net Neutrality will stand as a target against which the opposition can bounce lawsuits off until the spirit of the law is convoluted into the kind of word-smithing the Constitution has been reduced to.
Just as sodomy was found within the confines of that document, financial sodomy will be found within Title II.
who gets to decide what is lawful content and who elected them in charge?
For now it will be the Obowelmovement, but he'll appoint someone permanent after the start of his 3rd term.....
It's quite simple: Internet 2.0 (especially mobile internet) is a funnel, to harvest citizen's contributions, transactions, culture into a controllable grid. For it to function there must be a semblance of "freedom". They tried to float a balloon and saw that cutting access of less equal citizens to the control grid/tracking service, whould be counterproductive in the long run.
We're here typing shit, so I guess that works.
How did an unelected government bureaucracy get obtain this much power?
No one shot them.
....yet.
I'm still hopeful though.
By the consent of the legally dead (US citizens). They consent to be governed, and so they are.
This is one of the most important political books you can read: don't let the boring cover fool you. It's an accessible book, easy to read, by a well-known Columbia law professor. "While the federal government traditionally could constrain liberty only through acts of Congress and the courts, the executive branch has increasingly come to control Americans through its own administrative rules and adjudication... " While traditionally supporters of administrative law (agencies making law) have argued it was a natural modern development, law prof Philip Hamburger locates its origins in the medieval and early modern English tradition of royal prerogative.
Then he traces resistance to administrative law from the Middle Ages to the present. Medieval parliaments periodically tried to confine the Crown to governing through regular law, but the most effective response was the seventeenth-century development of English constitutional law, which concluded that the government could rule only through the law of the land and the courts, not through administrative edicts. Although the US Constitution pursued this conclusion even more vigorously, administrative power reemerged in the Progressive and New Deal Eras. Since then, Hamburger argues, administrative law has returned American government and society to precisely the sort of consolidated or absolute power that the US Constitution—and constitutions in general—were designed to prevent.
With a clear yet many-layered argument that draws on history, law, and legal thought, Is Administrative Law Unlawful? reveals administrative law to be not a benign, natural outgrowth of contemporary government but a pernicious—and profoundly unlawful—return to dangerous pre-constitutional absolutism"
http://www.amazon.com/Administrative-Law-Unlawful-Philip-Hamburger-ebook...
"While potentially good for a consumer's pocketbook"
ROTFLMFAO@Idiocy....just like the AFFORDABLE Care Act, huh?
if one internet gets hosed, let's create some other internets that aren't hosed.
I can't fucking wait for this douchebag to be elected our first women president.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/25/hillary-clinton-blame...
.....anyone see a distinct patter here? ANYTHING politicians get involved in turns to shit. I can't really say "government" because DARPA created the internet, well, that is unless you listen to fucking Al Gore.
Not to threadjack here, but seriously, what ASSHOLES voted for this piece of shit?
"Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle"
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560750
I don't even own an AR. Makes me want to run out and build a 300 AAC Blackout AR though.
'
LOL.
He is creating a lucrative underground economy for bullets and encryption.
White, male sperm may be in short supply soon too.
Don't do .300 blackout. The ammo cost is ridiculous. You can do a face to face for a multi-cal lower(no paperwork) and build a nice carbine in NATO caliber. Or bump it up and do an AR-10(.308) in rifle length. Face to face the lower receiver. That is the part that is tracked. Putting it together it like adult LEGOS.
Quick edit: Do both! Kit this shit out for all legal aged family members. It is every citizen's duty to be proficient with arms.
not for new taxes
but cleaning up some of the harmful crap off the net is not a bad idea
no more proselytizing for jihad, no more snuff vids
everything goes is not cool, it is harmful
A sane country would elect a president who promised to undo almost everything President Pimp has done. I've disagreed with virtually every word and action attributed to the twat.
could a concept like this work? something to think about. it could evlove as everything does.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2014/06/the-promise-of-an-...
Daisy chaining would work, but they would promptly make a law forbidding it. In the future, people will either work for the system, be imprisoned by the system, or be outlaws from the system. If you are here, you have chosen the latter.
Exactly. Embedded within the news "FCC Upholds Net Neutrality" is the message "FCC Has Authority Over the Net." I would expect the FCC to act nobly and selflessly on the people's behalf two or three more times, until the idea that it has total, legitimate authority over a system many had regarded as unregulated is fully established.
Then it will do whatever the fuck its masters want.
I am a Broadband and CATV local commissioner for a part of one of America's top 5 high tech zones. I just got called by several carriers to inform me that if this action by the FCC is upheld in court and not stopped by Congress, I should count on rates going up 115 to 150% for the same internet service as today and that I'll just have to do the explaining to the public and all the start-ups that are going to be hit with the rise in costs.
It's going to be expensive to even watch "Dancing With The Stars"!
The political and business censoring will be done economically. ObamaNet, here we cone!
If it means Netflix will have to deliver its content using the same potholed electronic highway as everybody else, then maybe more people will get fed up with "wait while loading" messages and do something more productive.
This is what happens when you let parasite jews into your country. http://www.dailystormer.com/evil-sith-lord-jew-george-soros-financing-pu...
So where are all the progressives that infest this site? The same place the "moderate" muslims are.
"crickets"
FOAD progressive scum.
Grimaldus
Freedom of Speech died today. Full Stop. The people just sold their birthright for a mess of pottage. A day that will go down in infamy.
The last pillar of control is the freedom of movement. See: Climate change. O's last frontier. Bet on it.
Once again I have to point out that bureaucrats do not have the legal authority to make law. That power rests with Congress only, and they may not delegate their powers to any other group or institution.
Obviously, Congress delegates all the time, but it's unconstitutional and it's a key reason we have our fascist govt.