GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING: NET NEUTRALITY

Showing posts with label NET NEUTRALITY. Show all posts

Saturday, February 28, 2015

FCC's Creepy Spectacle at Net Neutrality Vote

By Truthstream Media

Did you hear FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's weird speech after Net Neutrality passed? Did you see this picture of the commission members holding hands? The lobbyist and fervid (yes, fervid) Obama supporter running things over there is acting like he just walked on the moon while single-handedly saving everyone from a giant asteroid and cancer on the same day, all because a "majority" of three out of a panel of five unelected bureaucrats have closed the final frontier of the Internet, thus opening it up to more monopolies, price hikes, and worse, government regulation and censorship. Yay oligarchical collectivism!

Visit TruthstreamMedia.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

How the Government and Media Are Lying About Net Neutrality

By Lionel

It doesn't get any more axiomatic as to the necessity of the media to promote free-speech than the horrors that were manifested through the FCC's imposition of net neutrality that the mainstream media in particular have met with not so much as a raised Botoxed eyebrow. In case you missed it, the Internet and World Wide Web are now considered a utility under Title II of the Communication Act. The long-range implications of such are beyond mind boggling. This opens the door to licensure requirements for websites, decency regulation, fairness doctrine applications and worse.

Visit LionelMedia.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

Thursday, February 26, 2015

FCC's Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a "Solution That Won't Work to a Problem That Doesn't Exist"

By Reason TV

Net Neutrality is "a solution that won't work to a problem that doesn't exist," says Ajit Pai, a commissioner at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Pai is an oustpoken opponent of expanding government control of the internet, including FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's plan to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) under the same Title II rules that are used to govern telephone-service providers as public utilities.

Visit Reason.com

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.
Subscribe to GLOBAL POLITICAL AWAKENING by Email

Saturday, April 9, 2011

House votes to overturn 'net neutrality' rules

House Republicans Tee Up Resolution to Overturn Net Neutrality Rules

Al Franken: ‘They're coming after the Internet’

Mike Zapler
Politico

AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.

"I came here to warn you, the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”

Net neutrality, he added, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."

Receiving a hero's welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

6 Threats to Free and Open Access to the Internet

Activist Post

Many of us believe the Internet to be open and free for us to explore all known information. Indeed, it is true that we currently can surf to any active website with our browser, and we can start a website or blog on any topic we wish to discuss. And it is quite a profound concept that everyone with a smart phone literally has all of the world's knowledge in the palm of their hand.

Ben Franklin knew well the importance of free access to information when he founded the first public library in America to share knowledge with those without the means to their own books. Today, he surely would consider the Internet's unprecedented access to information, and ability to communicate it instantly, as the ultimate level playing field of economic mobility and freedom.

However, this access is now under threat of authoritarian control. First, it is important to note that the gears of the Internet have always been controlled by central authorities, as Douglas Rushkoff recently wrote, "From its Domain Name Servers to its IP addresses, the Internet depends on highly centralized mechanisms to send our packets from one place to another."

Therefore, the idea that our movements on the Web are even remotely private or untraceable is false. The central "authorities" who control the gears of the machine know exactly where you have been, while Google and the CIA have even developed ways of knowing where you're going next as well. It's very creepy to know that our every move is being tracked, traced, and databased, but it has been happening from day one on the Internet, and will likely continue to happen despite the violation of basic rights to our privacy.

Because Internet privacy has never been possible in the current web infrastructure, any proposed "privacy law" would just seem to pay lip service to the idea if it doesn't address decentralizing the control grid. As Rushkoff pointed out, "I'm not trying to be a downer here, or knock the possibilities for networking. I just want to smash the fiction that the Internet is some sort of uncontrollable, decentralized free-for-all, so that we can get on with the business of creating something else that is."

The focus here will be on the multitude of threats to our free access to the current Internet. As Ben Franklin understood, information should be free and open to all, not just the select few. Although the books in Franklin's first library were indeed copyrighted material, they were freely shared. We should think of the Internet as a gigantic open-source public library. A place where information such as news, books, movies, and music should be free to view while we're visiting the library.

Unfortunately, those who have control over the grid and influence over policymakers do not view the Internet in the same light. It appears that they view it as an economic and propaganda playground -- the last one that they don't fully control. Well, given the blight of proposed Internet control laws and web censorship tactics, it seems there is a calculated effort to control the free flow of information.

Below are 6 threats to our free and open access to the World Wide Web:

Legislation: The Protecting Cybersecurity as a National Asset Act, aka the "Internet Kill Switch" bill, has recently been reintroduced with a new Orwellian name, the Cybersecurity and Internet Freedom Act. This bill would give government the unchecked power to restrict access to the Internet if they declare a "national cyberemergency." CNET recently reported:

But the revised wording (PDF) continues to alarm civil liberties groups and other critics of the bill, who say the language would allow the government to shut down portions of the Internet or restrict access to certain Web sites or types of content. Even former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak didn't actually "shut down" the Internet: at least at first, a trickle of connections continued.

The second piece of legislation that's being reintroduced this year is the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA). This bill, clearly written by the mega-media entertainment cartel, would empower the U.S. Department of Justice to shut down, or block access to, websites found to be illegally sharing copyrighted material. It gives the government the authority to force Internet Service Providers to block access to websites from certain IP addresses, much like how the U.S. recently blocked the Al Jazeera feed during the Egyptian protests. COICA has also been referred to as the "Blacklist" bill because it allows the government to blacklist or seize any domain name suspected of infringement -- even if located outside the United States.

DHS Seizures: Who needs there to be laws on the books when the Department of Homeland Security appears to already be above the law. DHS has been on a rampage of arbitrarily seizing websites without due process. In November 2010, they seized over 70 websites suspected of copyright infringement. Just before the Super Bowl, DHS seized another lot of domains for illegally share-streaming sporting events -- some merely for linking to copyrighted material. Most recently, DHS erroneously seized 84,000 domains accused of being affiliated with child porn in some way which the DHS later admitted was done by accident.

Clearly, DHS has displayed its technical ability to censor the Internet by removing these websites. And although the domain seizures were technically accompanied by a court order, it seems that the DHS has partnered with large media outlets and sports entertainment to protect their profits. Finally, these court orders are a guilty-until-proven-innocent ruling which can irrevocably damage small businesses and the livelihoods of many people whose path to justice remains unclear.

Civil Lawsuits: Again who needs laws when you can be frivolously sued in civil court over copyright issues and bullied into settling the claim. Copyright infringement trolls like Righthaven are suing blogs and sites, and despite the only court ruling to date being a dismissal of charges due to Fair Use rights, they are still forcing many settlements. In fact, even Internet giant Drudge Report was forced to settle a civil suit involving a copyrighted image and link.

According to Steve Green, who's been diligently covering these lawsuits for the Las Vegas Sun, claims they are a new type of legal enterprise:

Attorneys say the Righthaven lawsuits are unprecedented in recent memory because, in the past, newspapers dealt with online copyright infringement by simply asking infringing websites to remove the infringing material and to replace it with a link to the source newspaper. Most Righthaven defendants say they were sued without warning.

Not surprisingly, most of the cases are settled out of court. However, this tactic is a very effective intimidation tool against small websites who seek to share information. In some cases the costs and aggravation of combating the lawsuit can force the closure of these website defendants.

Net Neutrality: It would seem that net neutrality should fall under the legislative category. However, it is actually considered more of a "market based" regulation than actual law, yet the taxpayer still funds its enforcement through the FCC. Before identifying the reasoning behind and specific aspects of net neutrality rules, it's worth noting that Internet futurist, Douglas Roshkoff, views the details as irrelevant because:

The moment the 'net neutrality' debate began was the moment the net neutrality debate was lost. For once the fate of a network -- its fairness, its rule set, its capacity for social or economic reformation -- is in the hands of policymakers and the corporations funding them -- that network loses its power to effect change. (source)

The concept behind net neutrality is just what it says; to keep Internet access neutral for all users. But again, it is a very Orwellian term where true supporters of a free an open Internet can be tricked into supporting so-called neutrality rules. Blogger Timothy Karr wrote, "The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users."

What they are, in fact, are rules to allow service providers to charge tiered price levels depending on the amount of broadband used by individual web-surfers or websites. In other words, certain access will be discriminated against through reduced access speeds or additional fees. Besides limiting size of the surfer's information wave, this tiered approach to the Internet will likely make it very difficult for smaller websites to compete with the big boys who can afford to pay ISPs for unadulterated access.

Technical Censorship: Google, Facebook, Youtube, Twitter and Wikipedia have become the most powerful information sharing tools the world has ever known. Combined, these five websites could literally rewrite history or shape the entire flow of current information if they chose to do so. Indeed, each of these virtual libraries has been repeatedly accused of censorship in many various forms; from blatant removal of content to manipulating the searchable strength of disapproved content.

Google, who seems so powerful that they may actually run the world, recently revealed that they are tweaking their search algorithm to weaken the search engine ranking of information aggregating websites referred to as "content farms." It seems that Google seeks to reduce websites with little original content to the level of spammer status in their search results. What's more, Google can wield the power of their Google Page Ranking for individual sites. Their constantly changing algorithm may actually penalize websites for search engine optimization, as with the recent case of JC Penney losing business due to Google penalizing them for SEO.

Taxes: If Congress or local governments elect to tax websites, the level playing field on the Internet is finished. In May 2010, the Federal Trade Commission proposed the "Drudge Tax" which would seek to tax news aggregators as if they are brick and mortar media companies. The FTC report also suggested that news aggregators be forced to pay copyright fees to link to mainstream news sources. And in perfect wealth distribution fashion the report also discusses the "possibility of offering tax exemptions to news organizations, establishing an AmeriCorps for reporters and creating a national fund for local news organizations."

More recently, some states have proposed taxing online retailers such as Amazon, arguing that it's not fair for local retailers who must pay taxes for selling the exact same items. In the past,Amazon has terminated its contracts with third-party affiliates in states who have adopted online tax laws. California Congressman, Dan Lungren, introduced the resolution Supporting the Preservation of Internet Entrepreneurs and Small Businesses aimed at preventing states from impose these new taxes on online retailers.

What's more, some states and even municipalities are beginning to impose a blogger fee referred to as a "privilege license" as a sort of business license for blogs. Philadelphia has forced bloggersto pay a $50/year, or $300 lifetime, fee for the privilege of expressing ideas online.

Conclusion
It seems clear that the powers-that-be are engaged in an all-out assault the free flow of information on the Internet. Blogs and websites must be prepared to combat the coming onslaught of news laws, regulations, and fees. For those who believe information should be free for all who pay for Internet access, we must fight to maintain this liberty. Stay tuned to the new blog Sites & Blogs for breaking Internet news and legal commentary about online copyright and privacy rights.

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Republicans seek to quash 'net neutrality' rules

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican members of the US Senate and House of Representatives are seeking to quash rules approved by US telecom regulators designed to ensure an open Internet.

The five-member Federal Communications Commission (FCC), in a vote split on party lines, agreed in December to the rules aimed at safeguarding "network neutrality," the principle that lawful Web traffic should be treated equally.

Supporters have argued that the rules are needed to ensure an open Internet but opponents have decried them as unnecessary government intervention.

Republicans in the Senate and House formally introduced a matching "resolution of disapproval" on Wednesday seeking to reverse the rules.

House majority leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, said the resolution is intended to "debunk the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."

"From the Internet's inception we have taken a hands-off approach," added Representative Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon.

"The Internet did not become the explosive driver of communications and economic growth it is today until we turned it over to free enterprise," Walden said. "Changing direction now will only harm innovation and the economy."

US carrier Verizon Communications filed a legal challenge to the FCC's rules last month, calling them an "assertion of broad authority for sweeping new regulation of broadband networks and the Internet itself."

The rules are a balancing act by the FCC between support for consumers and the cable and telephone companies that are the US Internet service providers.

The FCC drafted the rules after suffering a legal setback in April when a court ruled that it had not been granted the authority by Congress to regulate the network management practices of Internet service providers.

© AFP

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Google Seeks to Weaken Search Engine Ranking of "Content Farming" Websites

Alternative news sites beware, Google is changing their algorithm to reduce your status to a spammer in an attempt to control the flow of information on the Internet.

Eric Blair
Activist Post

Google has announced that it is fixing flaws in its algorithm that allows search results to be spammed, while also planning to weaken the search-ability of websites referred to as "content farms." Matt Cutts, head of Google's anti-spam team, writes:

As “pure webspam” has decreased over time, attention has shifted instead to “content farms,” which are sites with shallow or low-quality content. In 2010, we launched two major algorithmic changes focused on low-quality sites. Nonetheless, we hear the feedback from the web loud and clear: people are asking for even stronger action on content farms and sites that consist primarily of spammy or low-quality content. (my emphasis)

The only clear reference from Google about problems occurring from "content farms" in regards to spamming search results is from China: "Last year Google faced a rash of webspam on Chinese domains in our index. Some spammers were purchasing large amounts of cheap .cn domains and stuffing them with misspellings and porn phrases." They claim this scheme led to "irrelevant" search results.

Yet, their goal seems to be to weaken what has been referred to as "news aggregating" websites as "one change that primarily affects sites that copy others’ content and sites with low levels of original content." This clearly describes many sites that present alternative news. However, plenty of alternative news sites and blogs have original material which they freely share, in part or in full, purely to support one another in disseminating the truth. This is of key importance to spread information in the absence of government or foundation funding, as enjoyed by much of the mainstream media. It is also a counter to censorship, so that a free market of ideas can flourish where people can investigate facts for themselves, rather than have opinions dictated from a limited number of sources.

According to a recent cheerleading article byTechCrunch, content farms indeed include websites that post any duplicate content word-for-word, "Now, finally, it sounds like they’re going to do more to take on sites that just repurpose content from other sites (hopefully including the countless sites that repost TechCrunch articles verbatim)."

What's odd is that everyone knows that original content already carries far more weight with Google algorithms than re-posted content. Additionally, backlinks from well-ranked relevant sites is also a huge factor in building a strong Google page rank, besides driving traffic to the source. Therefore, it would stand to reason that websites like TechCrunch should be overjoyed when other relevant sites post their content, as long as it is sourced with a hyperlink. Alexa ranks TechCrunch at 305 on the entire Internet, no doubt due to their 36,374 links that Alexa recognizes. Without allowing the sharing of their original content, this level of achievement would be impossible under the current Google algorithm.

For those who understand this concept, if they punish sites that re-post content such as news aggregators that link back to them, the source will surely lose traffic and overall ranking despite being heavy in original content. Which begs the question, what people have been asking for "stronger action against content farms?" Because gauging the rise in popularity of alternative media (i.e. news aggregators), it seems that Internet users themselves aren't the ones complaining.

It is obviously the entrenched dinosaur media that despises having to play on a level field, especially as it pertains to truthful reporting and analysis. Former executive editor of the Washington Post, Leonard Downie Jr., addressed "old media vs. new media" in a September lecture where he excoriated so-called content farms as “parasites living off journalism produced by others.” He even claims re-posting of material, even if sourced, is "stealing" as reported by Politico:

'The aggregators fill their websites with news, opinion, features, photographs and video that they continuously collect – some would say steal – from other national and local news sites, along with mostly unpaid postings by bloggers who settle for exposure in lieu of money,' Downie said. 'Though they purport to be a new form of journalism, these aggregators are primarily parasites living off journalism produced by others. They attract audiences by aggregating journalism about special interests and opinions reflecting a predictable point of view on the left or right of the political spectrum, along with titillating gossip and sex. Revealing photos of and stories about entertainment and celebrities account for much of the highly touted web traffic to the Huffington Postsite, for example.'

Downie rightly states that these sites attract an audience seeking a certain point of view, but ignores the fact that mainstream outlets do the same. Some would argue that the real strength behind news aggregators is the ability to expose the establishment's gross injustices and other inconvenient truths without all the "titillating" distractions. As the masses become more aware of establishment lies, they are flocking to alternative sites who cut through the BS and present a clear path to the truth.

Google's algorithm changes seem to be yet another tool being used to direct the flow of information away from the alternative media to selected mainstream news sources. It compounds actions already taken by Google in their involvement in upending net neutrality in favor of mega-media machines; the attempt by Congress to crack down on copyright infringement by blacklisting domain names; and copyright extortionist lawyers suing over wording in links.

It's obvious that the establishment will find a way to punish truth sites, either through technical penalization for re-posting material, reducing access speed, blogging taxes, lawsuits for copyright infringement, or by arbitrarily blacklisting the domain altogether.

At its core, this new Google algorithm seems to punish information sharing in favor of protectionist conglomerates with large writing staffs. We in the alternative media would do well to recognize that these actions being taken by the elite of the media world are just another sign of their weakened state. Now is the time for the alternative media to seek more writers and more cooperation.

RELATED ARTICLES:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Information War
Copyright Extortionist Sues Drudge, Backed by Globalists

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Save 30% on our Deluxe tax filing package when you file at CompleteTax.com

Thursday, December 9, 2010

FCC's pay-as-you-go Internet plan raises video, access questions

Cecilia Kang
Washington Post

As details emerge about the Federal Communications Commission's controversial proposal for regulating Internet providers, a provision that would allow companies to bill customers for how much they surf the Web is drawing special scrutiny.

Analysts say pay-as-you-go Internet access could put the brakes on the burgeoning online video industry, handing a victory to cable and satellite TV providers.

The practice is legal, but had been discouraged by the FCC and by protests from consumers and public interest groups. But wireless companies are moving rapidly in that direction - all major cellphone providers offer subscribers tiered data plans for Internet service. AT&T doesn't offer flat-rate wireless plans for new customers.

And although FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said last week that his so-called net-neutrality proposal would generally prohibit broadband service providers from tampering with Internet traffic, he added that he is open to new billing models that charge by how much data a user consumes.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Age of Censorship and Internet Trade Wars
The Trust Crisis with Regulating Net Neutrality

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

The Trust Crisis with Regulating Net Neutrality

Activist Post

Since it was reported that Google and Verizon are close to a deal on so-called "net neutrality," the policy debate has heated up in Washington. Of course the debate has very little to do with the actual mechanics of how net neutrality will work, rather who will get the control to regulate it.

However, now that the FCC has abandoned negotiations on a "net neutrality" compromise, it is looking like the Congress will ultimately establish the rules -- handed down to them by their corporate masters. It seems the Elite's fight over who controls the dial has been decided. One thing is for sure, whoever controls the speed dial on the Internet will control the entire Web and subsequently all flow of information.

This is where the problem lies: the American people don't have any trust in their government, regulatory agencies, or corporations. In fact, it seems that these three entities typically work in unison to establish profit and power guarantees that can only be described as monopolistic cartels where power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We the people have lost our voice in nearly all legislation or regulation debates. And doing away with net neutrality -- the people's last bastion of free speech -- is the endgame for the power of the people.

Why do we need Net Neutrality protections? What is Net Neutrality?

Yes, broadband companies have real bandwidth concerns, and the telecom industry is losing money to the likes of Skype and Vonage. It is also looking like cable companies and video stores are nearly obsolete because of the expansion of the Internet. But we, the little guy, the blogger, the info-warrior, the casual web-surfer don't really give a shit about that. What we care about is free neutral access to all information and our privacy while getting that information.

It's unfortunate that those industries couldn't adapt fast enough to take advantage of the free market the Web has to offer. Just like the free market collapsed on General Motors and the banks, that tends to happen when the free market rejects your activities. In a real fee market those companies would die, and others in the industry would either adapt or end up just like them. That is how the free market self-regulates.

Globalist and heavyweight propagandist Rupert Murdoch is so confident that people will soon be forced to pay more for information, that he's already built in the pay infrastructure to his media empire's websites.

Back when Murdoch first announced these plans, which were going to limit the sharing of content from his sites, Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post, publicly made fun of him saying, "he obviously doesn't know how the Internet works."

That may be true, but given his status in Elite circles, I'm willing to bet he knows exactly how it'sgoing to work once the new control grid is in place.

Buy 1 Get 2 Free at Botanic Choice Buy 1 Bottle and Get 2 FREE (select items), plus Free Shipping on $25+ Expires 12/31/2010

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Monday, November 1, 2010

More Government Idiocy: Internet Black Lists

Karl Denninger
Market Ticker

There's dumb - and then there's really dumb, predicated on people who simply don't understand what they're doing, and should be barred from authoring legislation until they consult with some people who do know what they're doing.

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.

Help us stop this bill in its tracks! Click here to sign our petition.

COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.

The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Age of Censorship and Internet Trade Wars

Fresh food that lasts from eFoods Direct (Ad)

Live Superfoods It is time to Wake Up! You too, can join the "Global Political Awakening"!

Print this page

Monday, August 23, 2010

Alex Jones Exposes Google’s Plan to Dominate the Internet

Infowars.com
August 23, 2010

The net-neutrality ending deal with Verizon is just the beginning of Google’s plans to kill the open and free Internet as part of their takeover agenda to completely control the world wide web and force independent media websites, radio and TV shows out of existence for good.

Read Paul Joseph Watson’s Alex Jones Exposes Google’s Plan to Dominate the Internet.

Translate

GPA Store: Featured Products