john-rockefeller-jokerized

Rockefeller’s Attempt At Censoring America, Went Down In Flames: Censorship Word Gamed/Rubricated As ‘net neutrality’ Was Rolled Back 240-179

Obama/Soros thru the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) tried to impose regulations on talk radio requiring locally produced programs, shortening the license period to four years (from eight) and reining in conservative programming. It  also tried using the rubric of net neutrality to regulate the Internet. DESPITE FEDERAL COURT RULING, OBAMA AUTHORIZES 3 MARXISTS TO CONTROL FCC INTERNET MARSHALING

The Rothschild banking house in Naples, Italy, C. M. de Rothschild e figli, closes following the unification of Italy. The Rothschilds use one of their own in America, John D. Rockefeller, to form an oil business called Standard Oil which eventually takes over all of its competition. House Of Representatives Defund Net Neutrality ~ Freeing Citizens From Broadband Barons!

Continue reading

al-gore-didnt-invent-the-internet-but-made-up-global-warming

United States Congress: Abolish The FCC!

Rep. Marsha Blackburn Promises to Undo FCC’s Internet Regulations

Because there exists no area of human activity that couldn’t benefit from more paternalistic (aka; British Monarchy)* attention … Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the Federal Communications Commission to your Web browser.

Congressional Democrats cannot find the votes to pass “network neutrality.” No problem. Three unelected officials will impose rules on hundreds of millions of satisfied online consumers. A federal appeals court stops the FCC from employing authority over the Internet. Again, not a problem. Three out of five FCC commissioners can carve out some temporary wiggle room, because, as any crusading technocrat knows, the most important thing is getting in the door.

It’s not that we don’t need the FCC’s meddling (or worse); it’s that we don’t need the FCC at all. Rather than expanding the powers — which always seem to grow — of this outdated bureaucracy, Congress should be finding ways to eliminate it.

Why would we want a prehistoric bureaucracy overseeing one of the past century’s great improvements? As a bottom-up, unregulated and “under-taxed” market in which technological innovation, free speech and competition thrive — at affordable prices, no less — the Internet poses a crisis of ideology, not commerce, for the FCC.

It’s about control and relevance. What else can explain the proactive rescue of the Web from capitalistic abuses that reside exclusively in the imaginations of a handful of progressive ideologues?

What is the FCC doing? It’s complicated, and in some ways, it’s irrelevant. It claims that regulatory power will ensure that consumers enjoy an “open Internet.” (With more broadband providers than ever, is there anything more open than the Internet?) But the FCC can censor speech. And once the FCC can regulate Internet service providers, those providers will be more compliant and more interested in making censors happy.

The FCC also can hand out favors that hurt competition. And as Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School, wrote in 2008, “economic growth requires innovation. Trouble is, Washington is practically designed to resist it. Built into the DNA of the most important agencies created to protect innovation, is an almost irresistible urge to protect the most powerful instead.”

Even as Chairman Julius Genachowski claims that he will employ a “light touch,” the FCC leaves open the possibility that it will use the Title II docket to classify broadband as a public utility — and, as you know, nothing says progress and modernization like “utility.”

The same organization that forced all consumers to buy Ma Bell-made telephones for decades, the same FCC that enforced speech codes via radio “fairness doctrines,” the same FCC that took two decades after its invention to OK cellular technology for the marketplace and acted similarly sluggishly with cable and satellite innovation has no business online. It has a history of hurting consumers, not protecting them. (Unless you need protection from fleeting expletives and the once-a-decade nipple controversy.)

It is likely that a new Congress — or perhaps the courts — will undo this regulatory power play. And though “net neutrality,” or “open Internet” (no one needs to worry; doublespeak is still flourishing), may not survive, it reminds us that the FCC’s institutional positions conflict with the vibrancy and freedom of the Internet.

Positions that are as archaic as they are detrimental.

Reach columnist David Harsanyi at dharsanyi@denverpost.com.

* My Chime In

Real Clear Politics

Give Me Liberty

DESPITE FEDERAL COURT RULING, OBAMA AUTHORIZES 3 MARXISTS TO CONTROL FCC INTERNET MARSHALING

WASHINGTON—Federal telecommunications regulators approved new rules Tuesday that would for the first time give the federal government formal authority to regulate Internet traffic, although how much or for how long remained unclear.

The FCC has approved rules that would give the federal government authority to regulate Internet traffic and prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic. WSJ’s Amy Schatz explains what the new rules really mean.

A divided Federal Communications Commission approved a proposal by Chairman Julius Genachowski to give the FCC power to prevent broadband providers from selectively blocking web traffic.

The rules will go into effect early next year, but legal challenges or action by Congress could block the FCC’s action. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called the FCC’s action “flawed” and said lawmakers would “have an opportunity in the new Congress to push back against new rules and regulations.”

Editors’ Deep Dive: Net Neutrality Debate Heating Up

Access thousands of business sources not available on the free web. Learn More

The new FCC rules, for example, would prevent a broadband provider, such as Comcast Corp., AT&T, Inc. or Verizon Communications Inc., from hobbling access to an online video service, such as Netflix, that competes with its own video services.

The rules would also require Internet providers to give subscribers more information on Internet speeds and service. Broadly, the rules would prohibit Internet providers from “unreasonably discriminating” against rivals’ Internet traffic or services on wired or wireless networks.

The rules would allow phone and cable companies to offer faster, priority delivery services to Internet companies willing to pay extra. But the FCC proposal contains language suggesting the agency would try to discourage creation of such high-speed toll lanes.

Companies that operate mobile wireless networks would have fewer rules to contend with. Phone companies wouldn’t be able to block legal websites from consumers. They also can’t block mobile voice or video-conferencing applications. Wireless providers would be allowed to block other applications, however, that they say could take up too much bandwidth on wireless networks.

The five-member Federal Communications Commission board approved the new rules on a 3-2 vote, with the agency’s two Republican members rejecting the measure.

“For the first time, we’ll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness,” FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said Tuesday morning. He said the rules offered “a strong and sensible framework—one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment.”

Republicans at the FCC and on Capitol Hill blasted the FCC’s new rules, saying that they could stifle new investments in broadband networks and are unnecessary since there have been few complaints about Internet providers blocking or slowing web traffic.

The FCC’s action “is not motivated by a tangible competitive harm or market failure,” said Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican, who said she couldn’t support the rule because the agency was intervening to regulate the Internet “because it wants to, not because it needs to.”

At the same time, advocates of strong net-neutrality rules complained that Mr. Genachowski’s proposal didn’t go far enough, a sentiment echoed Tuesday by the agency’s other two Democrats.

Specifically, the two Democratic FCC commissioners wanted the same rules to apply to both wireless and wireline broadband networks. However, they agreed to approve the rules anyway, saying that passing Mr. Genachowski’s proposal was better than nothing.

“In my book, today’s action could, and should, have gone further,” said Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps.

Big phone and cable companies have expressed qualified support for the compromise, but they have said there was no real need for government regulation of web traffic.

Although this is the first time the FCC has passed formal rules on “net neutrality,” or the idea that Internet providers can’t deliberately block or slow web traffic, it is not the first time the agency has tried to act as an Internet traffic cop.

In 2007 the agency sanctioned Comcast for deliberately slowing the web traffic of some subscribers who were downloading large files over peer-to-peer networks. Comcast sued and in April, a federal appeals court sided with the cable giant, saying that the FCC didn’t have clear authority to enforce net neutrality.

The rules passed Tuesday are also likely to be legally challenged, and it isn’t clear if they will be upheld. Congress has never given the FCC explicit authority to regulate Internet lines, so the agency is using older rules to justify its authority.

Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

COMMIE BLASTER

Rothschild Controlled FCC Begins The Attack Upon The Open Internet Broadband Industry

THIS IS THE TRAITOR THAT IS DOING IT – ONE OF THE COMMITTEE OF 300 AKA ILLUMINATI Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) – ASK HIM POLITELY, WHAT THE F_CK DO YOU THINK YOUR TRYING TO DO BY BASTARDIZING THE CONSTITUTION?
I’D LIKE TO BUY A VOWEL PLEASE!

Grassley Asks FCC Chairman to Clarify Fairness Doctrine Statements: Socialists Attempting To Shut Down Conservative Radio!

Free Speech
Grassley Asks FCC Chairman to Clarify Fairness Doctrine Statements
WASHINGTON – Senator Chuck Grassley sent a letter today to the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Julius Genachowski, about concerns with the appointment of Mark Lloyd as Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer.  Grassley is concerned with the appointment due to Lloyd’s writings on political talk radio and the Fairness Doctrine.
Grassley discussed the Fairness Doctrine with Genachowski before his confirmation by the U.S. Senate.  Grassley was told by Genachowski that he did not support an effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.
“The appointment of Mark Lloyd to be the Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer is at odds with assurances that the FCC would not reinstate the Fairness Doctrine that Mr. Genachowski made prior to his U.S. Senate confirmation,” Grassley said.  “I hope Mr. Genachowski stands by his word and reaffirms his commitment to me that the FCC won’t be considering anything that accomplishes the goals of the Fairness Doctrine.”
The text of Grassley’s letter is shown below or by clicking here.
August 14, 2009
Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
Dear Chairman Genachowski,
On July 29, 2009, you announced the appointment of Mark Lloyd as Associate General Counsel and Chief Diversity Officer for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).  I write today to express my concerns with this appointment and ask for you to clarify and reaffirm statements you made to me in a personal meeting prior to your confirmation related to the Fairness Doctrine and efforts to diversify broadcast media.
On April 22, 2009, before your confirmation by the U.S. Senate for your position as Chairman of the FCC, you came to my office and told me that you did not support an effort to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine.  I took you at your word that, if confirmed, the policies that you promoted at the FCC would not include any policy or regulatory shifts that seek to reintroduce the long abandoned Fairness Doctrine.  However, I have serious reservations that you may be moving away from these statements you made to me regarding the Fairness Doctrine given the appointment of Mr. Lloyd to a position within the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) at the FCC.  Please allow me to elaborate.
My concerns relate to Mr. Lloyd’s participation in scholarly writings on political talk radio, the Fairness Doctrine, and efforts to bring greater diversity to talk radio.  Prior to joining the FCC, Mr. Lloyd served as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP), in addition to positions as a professor at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.  In his capacity as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, he coauthored a paper titled, “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.”  This paper argued that radio programming was currently “imbalanced” and that there are “serious questions about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs of all Americans.”  Mr. Lloyd’s paper suggests three options to remedy the “imbalance” in political talk radio, including (1) restoring caps on commercial radio station ownership, (2) ensure greater accountability in licensing, and (3) require owners who fail to enforce public interest ownership obligations to pay a fee.  While these remedies seem innocuous on their face, hidden within the paper are some stark revelations.
First, Mr. Lloyd’s paper suggests that the Fairness Doctrine was “never formally repealed.”  Instead, Mr. Lloyd argues that the FCC merely announced “it would no longer enforce certain
regulations under the umbrella of the Fairness Doctrine.”  The paper continues by stating that while the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the FCC decision, the Supreme Court has “never overruled the cases that authorized the FCC’s enforcement of the Fairness Doctrine…thus it technically would not be considered repealed.”
Second, the paper suggests that the FCC revise the licensing process for radio broadcasters.  Specifically, it suggests that licenses should not be permitted for longer than three years, that they be subject to challenges in the decision to renew their licenses, and that they submit to strict documentation and regulatory requirements.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the paper suggests that commercial radio owners be subjected to new regulatory requirements enforcing public interest obligations and if they fail to meet these standards, subjecting them to fees and taxes in order to compel compliance.  The paper suggests that such a fee or fine structure could raise between $100 million to $250 million in new revenue, but would not “overly burden commercial radio broadcasters.”
Taken together, these statements represent a view that the FCC needs to expand its regulatory arm further into the commercial radio market.  However, it would be unfair for me to say that Mr. Lloyd has specifically advocated for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.  Instead, he has argued that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary if other regulatory reforms to commercial radio are implemented.  Specifically, in discussing the CAP paper “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio,” Mr. Lloyd authored an internet article published on CAP’s website entitled, “Forget the Fairness Doctrine.”  In that piece, Mr. Lloyd stated, “we call for ownership rules that we think will create greater local diversity…we call for more localism by putting teeth into the licensing rules.  But we do not call for a return to the Fairness Doctrine.”
Simply put, I strongly disagree with Mr. Lloyd.  I do not believe that more regulation, more taxes or fines, or increased government intervention in the commercial radio market will serve the public interest or further the goals of diversifying the marketplace.  I am concerned that despite his statements that the Fairness Doctrine is unnecessary, Mr. Lloyd supports a backdoor method of furthering the goals of the Fairness Doctrine by other means.  Accordingly, I ask that you clarify and reaffirm your commitment to me to oppose any reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine.  Further, I ask you to affirmatively state that you will not pursue an agenda that includes any new restrictions, fines, fees, or licensing requirements on commercial radio that would effectively create a backdoor Fairness Doctrine.  I appreciate your prompt reply regarding this important matter.
Sincerely,
Chuck Grassley
United States Senator