Showing posts with label FCC power grab. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FCC power grab. Show all posts

Sunday, March 8, 2015

The Council Has Spoken!! Our Watcher’s Council Results – 03.06.15

http://www.trevorloudon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/wat1.jpg

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week’s Watcher’s Council match up.

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thought-crime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. “ – George Orwell’s 1984

“Whoever controls the media, controls the mind.” – Jim Morrison of The Doors

“The media’s the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that’s power. Because they control the minds of the masses.” - Malcolm X

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhN5HAJyYc9tdLaJC5ucA40JoNqL8DrJiS7fuTsHp1WbbDwVnLuzktx7ocSqqFCi3LtlXnLDC_oXusOZiFyWCyXRATCdFJcl_u54XCCqvOuAu3T4BoOoySf1sVS-DOAPTV6wVAhpcW8rYM5/s400/Noisy+room+2.jpg

This week’s winning essay, The Noisy Room’s – Net Neutrality: “Young fool … Only now, at the end, do you understand” takes apart the Obama dominated FCC’s plans to ‘regulate’ the Internet and turn it int0 something unrecognizable. Here’s a slice:

We keep hearing, from the saviors in Washington, DC, how government regulation is the answer and how “evil monopolies” (created, incidentally, by other government regulations) are responsible for all our trials and tribulations and the “fundamental unfairness” of the Internet as she is currently wrote.

Obligatory movie quote:

“No. No government. I know those people. Absolutely not.” – Col. Ira Kane

Yeah, it’s a movie. It’s also absolutely right.

The founder of Broadcast.com, Mark Cuban, has recently been vociferous in his opposition to so-called “Net Neutrality” with his most recent public appearance on the subject in an interview where he breaks it down. His effort to “plain-language” the argument notwithstanding, and frankly, it’s a subject that should not be oversimplified, he laid out the unintended consequences dominoes and how this “everything is equal” push plays out in terms of common services.

Now, you might want to shrug Mark Cuban off as “some rich guy who owns a sports team” and clearly that’s being done a lot, but don’t forget how he got rich: he pioneered live broadcasting over the Internet. He’s not some political hack, evil cable company exec, or mushy thinking me-too “fairness uber alles” flag waver. He is, for once, someone who knows what the hell he’s talking about.

Net Neutrality, like so many political labels, is a “fair sounding” name that hides the actual motives and consequences of the real world implementations we will experience after the seemingly inevitable adoption of this latest government overreach.

It won’t be fair. It won’t be optimum. And the right answer will never even be mentioned, never mind entertained: deregulate the cable and broadband space to eliminate the protected monopolies.

The broadband space needs more competition, not less; needs less regulation, not more. Companies like Google laying fiber? Cox, AT&T, Verizon and Comcast suddenly no longer have a free pass.

Otherwise? The cynical and dystopian view?

One of the unavoidable dominoes will be broad censorship. Once the deprioritization of broadcast packets leads to the epic traffic jam that will reduce the Web’s US speeds to worse than those found in Europe, the government of the day will, once again, have to “save us” from this “unforseen” outcome and their clever plan will include limiting who can “legitimately” have bandwidth preferences, since clearly “legitimate” news outlets need to bypass the buffering jams that will afflict TV signaling and once dot-gov starts adjudicating who’s a “real” news or other “essential” service, licensing will naturally follow, and then “standards” of what is “acceptable” traffic.

At which point, whichever political party is in power at that time will have the distinct advantage of licensing whomever they deem to be more politically correct in their eyes. “Neutrality” on the ‘Net? Yeah, not so much.

We’re in the hands of fools and corrupt bureaucrats. Last Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission held a faux meeting on open Internet rules and access to broadband Internet. Commissioner Ajit Pai made a statement before the FCC vote to take unprecedented control over the internet with a secret plan. Yes, secret. Secret as in no exposure to the public or Congress prior to its enactment. What follows is the transcript of his comments – in echoes of Obamacare, this had to pass before we could know what was in it. Except, they are still keeping it under wraps. It must be very, very bad indeed.

From Breitbart:

“The Wall Street Journal reports that it was developed through ‘an unusual secretive effort inside the White House.’ Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a parallel version of the FCC. Their work led to the president’s announcement in November of his plan for internet regulation, a plan which the report says blindsided the FCC and swept aside months of work by Chairman Wheeler toward a compromise. Now, of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here’s what a leader for the government-funded group Fight for the Future had to say, ‘We’ve been hearing for weeks from our allies in D.C that the only thing that could stop FCC chairman Tom Wheeler from moving ahead with his sham proposal to gut net neutrality was if we could get the president to step in. So we did everything in our power to make that happen. We took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory. Congratulations. what the press has called the parallel FCC at the White House opened its door to a plethora of special interest activists. Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking the chairman’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials.

“But what about the rest of the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process altogether. They were being played for fools. And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan, and ‘asked’ the FCC to implement it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May, and it differs so dramatically that even zealous net neutrality advocates frantically rushed in, in recent days, to make last-minute filings, registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far. Yet, the American people, to this day, have not been allowed to see President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.

“Especially given the unique importance of the internet, Commissioner O’Rielly and I ask for the plan to be released to the public. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Chairman did the same. According to a survey last week by a respected democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the document public. Still, the FCC has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass President Obama’s 317-page plan so the American people can find out what’s in it. This isn’t how the FCC should operate. We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record.

“We shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for political decisions made by the White House. And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today. There is no immediate crisis in the internet marketplace that demands immediate action. now. The backers of the president’s plan know this. But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more the American people learn about it, the less they will like it. That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House. And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.

“These aren’t my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal plans that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. but rather than address them today, I will reserve them for my written statement. At the beginning of this proceeding, I quoted Google’s former CEO, who once said, the internet is the first thing that humanity has built, that humanity doesn’t understand. This proceeding makes it abundantly clear that the FCC still doesn’t get it. but the American people clearly do. The proposed government regulation of the internet has awakened a sleeping giant. I’m optimistic we’ll look back on today’s vote as a temporary deviation from the bipartisan consensus that’s served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future commission, But I do believe its days are numbered. For all of those reasons, I dissent.”

More at the link.

In our non-Council category, the winner was Jim DeMint in the Daily Signal with If Not Now … When? Will the GOP Majority Ever Stand for Anything? submitted by Ask Marion . As the man who, along with Sarah Palin was pretty much responsible for the victory in the 2010 midterms that resurrected he GOP from the grave, Deb Mint is definitely in a position to look at the Republicans in Congress today and wonder if they stand for anything.

After lying to their supporters again in 2014 about how they would dismantle President Obama’s radical agenda and being rewarded with majorities in both houses of Congress, they’ve reneged on everything they said they would do at election time. Can they ever be trusted again? Do read it.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners
Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Forum: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?

Every week on Monday morning , the Council and our invited guests weigh in at the Watcher’s Forum, short takes on a major issue of the day, the culture, or daily living. This week’s question: What Is Your Opinion Of the New Proposed Internet Rules President Obama Wants The FCC To Impose?

The Independent Sentinel : It’s the government getting its tentacles into one more thing.

It gives companies immunity when they share our data. We no longer have privacy protections from the government in the name of security. The government will freely share our information among government agencies.

The government claims the information-sharing system would not put privacy at risk as the information disclosed will principally concern the method of attack on computer data and systems, rather than its content.

Who trusts them?

Why do they need these rules when they can already do it? Is it just a way of bullying companies into doing it more readily? They have been resistant.

According to the Guardian, “it would criminalize the overseas sale of stolen US financial information like credit card and bank account numbers, would expand federal law enforcement authority to deter the sale of spyware used to stalk or commit ID theft, and would give courts the authority to shut down botnets engaged in distributed denial of service attacks and other criminal activity.”

Meanwhile, our government won’t allow illegal immigrants to be charged or held if they steal IDs.

There will be more consumer notifications pushed on companies who become aware of breaches but they already notify consumers. It’s more regulation and more expense that will be passed down to consumers.

The bill is vague and will be misinterpreted.

Laura Rambeau Lee, Right Reason: If we have learned anything with this administration, what they say and what we get are diametrically opposed. The Affordable Care Act has proven unaffordable for many. President Obama wants the FCC to reclassify the internet under Title II of the Telecommunications Act and extend that regulation to mobile broadband service as well. Net neutrality will not lead to a fairer, more open and free internet as the president promises. As Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz stated: “Net neutrality puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered, leading to fewer choices, fewer opportunities, and higher prices for consumers.” I believe that about sums it up.

The internet has been working very well in a free market system. If we want to keep an affordable, free, and open internet, we must keep government out of it.

The Glittering Eye : I’m not sure how to answer the question. Perhaps the best way would be for me to state what I’m in favor of. First, a brief preface.

The Internet grew from developments by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for a computer network that could survive nuclear war. The Internet has succeeded because a) it was in the public domain, b) ICANN (the ultimate registrar of domain names) has been seen as apolitical and fair, c) it has largely been free of regulation and taxes, and d) the cost of entry was relatively low. Later that development was augmented by the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN) and the University of Illinois’s computer science department.

Previous attempts at large scale computer networks whether public (in France) or private (by many companies) had failed. There is no reason to believe that any proprietary network would have succeeded.

I am unsympathetic to the complaints of the mega-service providers. In large part they enjoy the position of power they hold because of their government-granted monopolies. They have expended very little capital on research and development in their Internet service enterprises and have enjoyed substantial revenues with things as they are. That other companies, e.g. Google, Netflix, are making profits out of the Internet as it is is merely sour grapes on the part of the ISPs. If they demand more money from their investments on network infrastructure, minor relative to the revenues they’ve derived from them, they should meter bandwidth at the customer level and leave providers alone.

Consequently, I believe in network neutrality, that the Internet should be largely free of sales taxes, that it should remain predominantly uncensored, and that Time-Warner, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, and so on should be regulated by the FCC. In particular I think that any business that has gained its present position as the result of government-granted monopoly should be kept out of the content business. I’m not sure where that puts me relative to the Obama Administration but that’s what I think.

JoshuaPundit: What government can regulate, it can control. And what it can control, it can tax. Ultimately, screwing yet more tax revenues out of the American people is a lot of what this is all about,and the fact that this president wants the FCC to impose these new proposed rules without congressional oversight while it has a  majority of his appointees who took their seats while he had a congressional majority tells me all I need to know.

The other major part of what this is about is censorship and control of content. This president is also not only hyper-partisan but a long time appeaser of Islamists, and he has already said that he is going to ‘fight the media ‘  and the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles,using the lame excuse that he is suddenly concerned about the welfare of the same troops overseas whose lives he has endangered with ridiculous Rules of Engagement and his illegal wars. Rest assured that very selective censorship in a great many areas will be the order of the day if he gets his way.

Ask Marion: On Thursday 01.15.15 the White House said legislation was not necessary to settle the “net neutrality” rules issue because the Federal Communications Commission had the authority to write them. And President Obama’s rallying cry this past week has been… ‘Everyone deserves free Internet’. Beware of politicians bearing free gifts!!!

Quick Background:

What actually is at immediate stake here is what rules should govern how Internet service providers (ISPs) manage web traffic on their networks to ensure they treat all Internet content fairly. At the heart of the latest phase in the debate over the rules is what legal authority should guide those regulations.

Obama is urging the FCC to regulate ISPs more strictly under a section of communications law known as Title II, treating them more like public utilities. The broadband companies adamantly oppose this plan, saying the added regulatory burden would reduce investment and stifle innovation in their industry.

The Republican chairmen of the Senate and House commerce committees, John Thune and Fred Upton, have been working to strike a legislative deal with Democrats that would adopt some of the same net neutrality principles but without resorting to Title II.

Late on Wednesday, Thune released a list of the net neutrality principles he would pursue, which closely echoed Obama’s, such as bans on blocking or throttling of websites.

While some Republicans have also sought a delay in the FCC’s vote to establish new net neutrality rules, planned for February 26th, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has indicated no interest in a change or delay.

“Chairman Wheeler believes it is important to move forward as quickly as possible to protect consumers, innovation and competition online,” FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart said in a statement.

Evoking net-neutrality and expanding the scope and power the FCC has been on the Obama administrations’ radar since day one and now that they are in their final two years, the administration has entered their complete lawless phase. So controlling communication is high on their agenda. It is all about control and these changes are just the tip of the iceberg. Censorship; monitoring newsrooms; and taking control of every aspect of communication… newspapers, radio, TV, Internet, news outlets, textbooks, movies, even art, plus the services that support them have been on Obama’s list since 2009, when both minority groups and Democrats questioned net neutrality.

The Republicans in Congress are in favor of a net neutrality law as long as the federal government doesn’t handle it, so are trying to drum up support for a bill that would counter the FCC’s upcoming new rules. But after the Obama administration’s comments getting Democrats on board could be difficult.

The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC’s “open internet” plan. That includes the following major points:

The proposed bill attempts to offer a compromise between hard-line opponents of net neutrality and the larger changes preferred by President Obama and many progressive activists. It would modify the Communications Act of 1934, adding the basic elements of the FCC’s “open internet” plan. That includes the following major points:

No blocking of lawful services on a network
No prohibiting the use of non-harmful devices
No traffic throttling — except for “reasonable network management,” it would be illegal to slow or degrade any site or service
No paid prioritization
Transparency requirements for ISPs

Much of the language for this bill was lifted directly from the FCC’s 2010 Open Internet Order, which was thrown out in court last year?!? It includes less-than-ideal exceptions for network management and “specialized services” like VoIP, but it settles a major point of contention in Wheeler’s proposal by banning paid prioritization, which would have allowed ISPs to offer faster service for companies that paid more. In some ways, it’s exactly what net neutrality supporters have been asking for, although the advocacy group Public Knowledge has expressed concerns about how strong its protections would be in practice.

A crucial point is that the bill adds all of this to Title I of the Communications Act, classifying broadband as an “information service.” Title I services are regulated more lightly than Title II “common carriers” like telephone companies. The last FCC net neutrality framework plan was struck down because it came too close to making rules that only Title II allows:

“In terms of legislation, we don’t believe it’s necessary given that the FCC has the authorities that it needs under Title II,” said a White House official. “However, we always remain open to working with anyone who shares the president’s goal of fully preserving a free and open internet now and into the future.”

Of course in reality, preserving a free and open Internet is the opposite of the this administration’s goal and we all should have learned by know that anything regulated and run by the government makes it and us less free. In fact, in March of 2014 ICANN and the US government announced their intention to relinquish control of the Internet to the UN by 2015, so there is much more to this plan than just a few rule changes! Anything turned over to the United Nations brings us just us one step closer to globalization and the ruling elite’s goal of a New World Order which will definitely make us all less free.

Everyone deserves free Internet. Sounds good until you remember… you can’t have both freedom of speech and big government that controls the media… It is a choice!! And it not only won’t be free, it will more expensive for everyone. We (you) will all be paying for everyone’s Internet service plus the government bureaucracy that will run it.

Pay attention America, if government controls the media… TV, radio, the Internet… your free speech stops and the attempt to take over media and your information will be even easier and more blatant than it already is…

My feeling, like always, is less government involvement is always best!

Well, there you have it!

Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum. and every  Tuesday morning, when we reveal the weeks’ nominees for Weasel of the Week!

And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council, and the results are posted on Friday morning.

It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere, and you won’t want to miss it...or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.

And don’t forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter..’cause we’re cool like that, y’know?

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 20, 2014

FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern As FCC Plans to Issue New 'Net Neutrality' Rules… Wake Up America

Video: Is Government Going To Control What News You See & Hear - Obama Admin Attack On First Amendment

Is Government Going To Control What News You See & Hear?  The Obama Administration is attacking our First Amendment - Special Report  -->  Wake The Hell Up America…  And as a reminder, the Second Amendment is there to protect First Amendment

By Marion Algier – Ask Marion

Greta Van Susteren is outraged on the February 19th when this fame to light and discuss with a panel: Byron York, Karen Tumulty (WaPo) & AB Stoddard

Byron York mentions an article on Feb 10, by a Republican FCC commissioner, Ajit Pai: on The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom at WSJ.com and another attempt at Net Neutrality.

She asks the question: Who thought this was a good idea?

Video: Obama's News Police - WH Pushes FCC To Install Newsroom Spies - Attack On First Amendment

Video: News Police Exposed - Obama Admin Pushes FCC To Install Newsroom Spies - On The Record

Video: Renee Ellmers: Plan to put monitors in newsrooms is latest attempt by Obama Admin to trample

Former Fox host Glenn Beck warned that this would be coming back in 2009!  Obama’s former FCC Czar admired Hugo Chavez & Wanted To Emulate Venezuela’s Control of Speech & Communication~

FCC Plans to Issue New 'Net Neutrality' Rules

Cables and routers at a Comcast distribution center where the Comcast regional video, high speed data and voice are piped out to customers on Feb. 13, 2014 in Miramar, Fla. Getty Images

WSJ:  WASHINGTON—The Federal Communications Commission said Wednesday it would again issue rules to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or slowing down access to content providers that don't pay a toll to reach consumers.

However, analysts said the rules could open the door for broadband providers to cut deals with content companies like Netflix Inc. NFLX -1.97% or Google Inc. GOOG -0.71% to give their products some kind of advantage, either though speed or prominent placement.

The FCC's announcement means it doesn't plan to reclassify broadband as a public utility at present, as Democrats and public-interest groups had urged. Doing so would give the FCC much greater authority to set rules for broadband providers.

Supporters say treating all Internet traffic equally, a concept known as net neutrality, is crucial to keeping the Internet open and allowing smaller companies to compete with the biggest content providers. But the courts have ruled against the FCC's previous attempts to enforce net neutrality on companies like Comcast Corp. CMCSA -3.66% and Verizon Communications Inc. VZ +1.20% that provide Internet connections to households and businesses.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out FCC rules barring providers from blocking or slowing down websites, but it acknowledged the FCC has some authority to regulate broadband-company practices under a section of the 1996 Telecommunications Act that gives it broad authority to encourage U.S. broadband service.

The FCC said Wednesday it won't appeal the D.C. Circuit's ruling. Instead, it plans to take advantage of Section 706, of the law to propose new rules in the late spring or early summer, after soliciting public comment.

"The FCC must stand strongly behind its responsibility to oversee the public interest standard and ensure that the Internet remains open and fair," FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said in a statement. "The Internet is and must remain the greatest engine of free expression, innovation, economic growth and opportunity the world has ever known."

The court said in January that the FCC could impose a "no blocking" rule if it found a different legal justification. Mr. Wheeler's statement indicates the FCC will do just that, by establishing a minimum standard for how broadband companies treat content. The rules would likely outline expectations and unacceptable practices for broadband providers, and provide for case-by-case enforcement when websites complain of unfair discrimination.

Analysts said the new rules could pave the way for deals between Internet providers and content companies to carry their content to consumers at higher speeds. Paul Gallant, a telecom policy analyst at Guggenheim Securities, said his reading of the commission's principles is that the agency is more likely to focus on policing anti-competitive conduct than on discouraging the content deals.

"I think the FCC will be inclined to permit voluntary paid prioritization deals," he said.

Even with that caveat, Republicans are opposed to the new proposed rules. "I am deeply concerned by the announcement that the FCC will begin considering new ways to regulate the Internet," FCC Commissioner Michael O'Rielly said. "The Obama administration refuses to abandon its furious pursuit of these harmful policies to put government in charge of the Web," House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) and Rep. Greg Walden (R., Ore.) said in a statement.

Any rules would have to be approved by a vote of the five-member commission, which includes three Democrats and two Republicans.

Net neutrality supporters, however, were disappointed with the FCC's decision not to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility, which they had argued was the only way to make the rules stand up in court.

Andy Schwartzman, a telecom lawyer and adviser to the anti-media consolidation group Free Press, said not reclassifying broadband "would be repeating the biggest mistake" made during prior efforts by former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

Broadband providers have argued that reclassification would be disastrous for the industry because it would subject them to regulations designed for the landline phone system. "We think reclassification would probably be the ultimate death of the broadband market," Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen said in an interview last week. "We think it would dry up private investment and destroy all the gains made in the broadband market in the U.S."

Cohen's comments were made in the context of his company's bid to acquire Time Warner Cable Inc. TWC -2.75% Comcast has already agreed to abide by the FCC's net neutrality rules, even though they were struck down in court, as part of its acquisition of NBC-Universal in 2011. Comcast has also agreed to extend the agreement to Time Warner Cable Inc. subscribers if that acquisition is approved.

Mr. Wheeler has left the reclassification option open for now, which could serve as a deterrent for broadband providers seeking to challenge the rules in court again.

A Verizon spokesman said the company said it wouldn't appeal last month's court ruling, and that it is too early to determine whether it would challenge the FCC's latest rules.

As part of the process, the FCC will also examine ways to encourage competition in the broadband market. That could include removing legal restrictions that prevent cities and towns from building their own broadband or Wi-Fi networks. 

The Rewards Of ‘Cooperation’ With The NSA – Verizon Given Huge Federal Contract

FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern - Wake Up America - America's Newsroom

Sekulow explains this very well - FCC gives license to broadcasters, but the FCC is also doing this for newspapers which do not come under the authority of the FCC.

Video (Martha McCallum with Jordan Sekulow): FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern - Wake Up America - America's Newsroom

Audio: RUSH: Media Wouldn’t Oppose Regime Monitors In Newsrooms

RUSH/EIB: It’s clear the Regime thought they could get away with doing this this time. Hugo Chavez used to do things like this all the time. Now, here’s the question. Let’s just go hypothetically here. Let’s say that Adweek did not discover the study has been suspended. Let’s say it’s gonna go forward. At some point, they’re gonna try it. Will major American media organizations stand up and righteously, indignantly oppose this?

I can make the case that I don’t think they would.  Most people think instinctively, reflexively, the media not gonna put up with it something like that.  “No way! You’re gonna have a government monitor in my newsroom? You’re gonna be quote/unquote ‘monitoring’ the stories I choose to cover and the stories I don’t want to cover, and you are gonna be cataloging what you think is my bias?  No way, pal!”  But I can see where, given the current circumstances that exist today, they wouldn’t oppose it. 

In fact, I could make the case to you that they would welcome it.  I explained this to Snerdley today.  He could not believe me.  He did not believe that I was being serious.  “You’re joking,” he said.  No.  I can make the case where journalism schools would not oppose it but instead will support it — and I’ll bet I could make the case to you, given current circumstances.  I think the media might look at it as an opportunity to get even closer to Obama.  I think some might look at it as a way of impressing Obama. Read more HERE

Video: FCC Proposes Initiative To Study How Journalists Operate - Attack On First Amendment?  

Video: WaPo Reporter: Plan to put monitors in newsrooms is like ATF walking into a gunshop

Judge Andrew Napolitano’s head is exploding -!!! Chilling!  The Judge explains where it came from: the White House instructions to FCC.  Freedom of the press is guaranteed in first amendment.  This is a radical new era of tyranny in the White House says the judge.  Currently it is voluntary but Judge Nap says that would eventually change. Allowing this another camel’s nose under the tent situation.  You and every journalist should be outraged!!

Video: Media Grilling - Does FCC Study Violate Freedom Of The Press? - Judge Andrew Napolitano F&F

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, May 4, 2012

Obama Assembling De Facto Propaganda Ministry

By Steve Peacock – WND

The U.S. State Department is planning to “buy” media broadcasts, as the Obama administration assembles a de facto propaganda machine, according to documents that reveal the president’s plans moving closer to the 2012 election.

Watching32-276x275[1]

According to information WND located via routine database research, State’s Bureau of Public Affairs is soliciting the help of “global news coverage service providers” to create and disseminate department “news.”

The selected contractor will provide “full-time, 24/7 service,” the Statement of Work for the plan said.

“The department seeks a service provider for full, turn-key news-style global television coverage of ad hoc open press events featuring the Secretary of State and other officials across the United States and throughout the world,” according to the SOW, “and to send this content back to the department’s Washington headquarters…”

Upon receiving these privately packaged productions, the department, in turn, “will distribute this video content to media organizations through an array of traditional and new media platforms.”

Indeed, just as the department is awaiting contractor bids on the project, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s representative at the World Press Freedom Day in Tunisia heaped accolades upon UNESCO for hosting the annual event.

Read about how the U.S. mission at the United Nations works with reporters, and find out what the White House does with some of those raising questions.

In a “tweet” from Tunisia, Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs Esther Brimmer said, “I applaud the tireless, continuing work of #UNESCO in promoting the ideals of free and open media.”

Brimmer delivered remarks on behalf of the Obama administration during the opening ceremony, along with presenting a video speech from Clinton.

Referring to the Arab Spring demonstrations across the Middle East and North Africa, Clinton said, according to a prepared statement, “Voice by voice, text by text, Tunisians, Egyptians, Libyans and many others have dared to say what they believe and stand up for their own rights.

“Many others have dared to report on what they see happening, even when their lives were at risk.”

The State Department plan is twofold: to hire a single contractor to provide television news crew services on the one hand, and to provide transmission/streaming services as a corollary service.

“The television news crew category is both one and two-person crews, and includes one and multi-camera productions,” the SOW pointed out. “The transmission category includes both traditional fiber, terrestrial and satellite-based as well as file-based and Internet delivery platforms.”

The use of such government- as well as industry-funded broadcasts, known as “video news releases,” or VNRs, has increasingly come under fire in the past decade.

VNRs “are segments designed to be indistinguishable from independently produced news reports that are distributed and promoted to television newsrooms,” according to Source Watch, a Center for Media and Democracy project that chronicles the intersecting of public relations and public policy.

The General Accountability Office – the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress – in 2005 declared that several federal entities, such as the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services, may have violated the law by disseminating VNRs as fact-based news reports.

Subsequent to the GAO’s findings, the “Stop Government Propaganda Act” was introduced to rein in and punish such activities; it died, however, after being introduced in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Proponents of VNR distribution claim that use of the video products is wholly legitimate. The Public Relations Society of America is that a VNR simply is “the video equivalent of a press release.”

The organization does advocate that industry members abide by certain parameters to ensure the integrity of VNR usage:

  1. Organizations that produce VNRs should clearly identify the VNR as such and fully disclose who produced and paid for it at the time the VNR is provided to TV stations.
  2. PRSA recommends that organizations that prepare VNRs should not use the word “reporting” if the narrator is not a reporter.
  3. Use of VNRs or footage provided by sources other than the station or network should be identified as to source by the media outlet when it is aired.

Despite congressional refusal to crack down on VNRs, the Federal Communications Commission issued a reminder to licensees of their sponsor-identification requirements under the Communications Act or 1934. Rather than holding liable the creators of the reports, the commission has placed the burden of disclosure on who ultimately airs the VNR.

“These rules are grounded in the principle that listeners and viewers are entitled to know who seeks to persuade them with the programming offered over broadcast stations and cable systems,” the FCC said.

When such VNRs are aired, “licensees and operators generally must clearly disclose to members of their audiences the nature, source and sponsorship of the material that they are viewing.”

Although the FCC continues to enforce these rules, the penalties arguably have been light.

Last year, for instance, it issued a forfeiture order to Fox Television Stations, Inc. when station affiliate KMSP-TV of Minneapolis used – but failed to identify – a General Motors-provided VNR during a news broadcast.

The FCC fined Fox $4,000 for failing to disclose GM sponsorship of the report.

Among other VNR-related enforcement actions, in 2007 it imposed a $4,000 fine on Comcast Corp. for also violating the sponsorship disclosure rules. Comcast’s CN8 news affiliate in that case had aired a VNR produced on behalf of Nelson’s Rescue Sleep.

The FCC soon after separately slapped a $16,000 forfeiture against Comcast for airing two VNRs from General Mills and Allstate, respectively.

The State Department through May 21 is reviewing contractor proposals in response to the new solicitation. It did not disclose the estimated cost of the endeavor, for which it will award a year contract with four one-year options.

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Call a radio talk show, get recorded by the FBI ... And Gov’t to Take Control Of Communications Temporarily On 11/9/11

FBI begins recording call-ins

Original Post: October 14, 2011 - 11:35 am Eastern © 2011 

Next time you call a talk radio station, beware: The FBI may be listening.

According to WMAL.com, "The FBI has awarded a $524,927 contract to a Virginia company to record as much radio news and talk programming as it can find on the Internet. … The FBI says it is not playing Big Brother by policing the airwaves, but rather seeking access to what airs as potential evidence."

The agency's reasons for recording all these radio programs don't get any clearer as the news report goes on. No doubt that is intentional.

Rush Limbaugh

"Don't hold out hope for Palin."

That was Rush Limbaugh's advice to a caller who was clinging to hope that the former Alaska governor would finally enter the 2012 Presidential race.

"You've got practical things like filing deadlines coming up, some are within a week now," Rush explained, "so I think it's time to move on. I think it's time to let go and move on" (FREE audio).

Ken Hoffman at the Houston Chronicle complained that, "Limbaugh is now calling first lady Michelle Obama … 'Moo-Chelle Obama.' Even for El Rushbo, that's stupid and insensitive. Limbaugh reportedly earns $38 million a year and lives in a beachfront mansion in Palm Beach, Fla. He can't afford a mirror?"

Michael Savage

This week, Michael Savage labeled Barack Obama a "lifetime Marxist" and renewed concerns about his eligibility to serve as president.

He explained to listeners: Obama is "a man who refuses to show a valid birth certificate, a man who applies for college aid as a foreign student and then denies he's foreign, a man who has a Social Security number from a state he's never even lived in." (FREE audio).

Savage also declared: "The second Bolshevik revolution is beginning in the United States of America, egged on by our first communist president and his cronies. Obama is using the rabble in the gutters to draw attention away from the 'Fast and Furious' Mexican gunrunning scandal, and all the other scandals in this administration":

Video:  Michael Savage Dedicates His Show To Red October

Sean Hannity

The New York Times shadowed Sean Hannity as part of a story about Fox News' 15th anniversary, and were forced to concede: "Despite the inflammatory rhetoric he instigates, Mr. Hannity is good-natured and humble in person, as interested in his children's tennis matches as in Mitt Romney's foreign policy positions. He rarely agrees to interviews, and when he did last week, he said he did not read negative articles about him, or even the friendly Twitter account all about his abundant head of hair."

Newt Gingrich joined Hannity on the air to analyze the most recent GOP candidate's debate, both his own performance and those of the other potential Republican nominees (FREE audio).

Mark Levin

"These debates are starting to bore me," Mark Levin told listeners this week. He complained that there were too many participants, and none of them will dare take on Mitt Romney (FREE audio).

Speaking of Romney, Levin slammed New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for endorsing him. Levin feels neither of these men are "true" conservatives, and he is tired of hearing that "conservatives can't win" (FREE audio).

Laura Ingraham

Two Republican governors offered Ingraham different takes on who could take the White House in 2012.

Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour told Laura and her listeners that Herman Cain would "sweep the South" if he is the GOP nominee (FREE audio).

However, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell told her, "If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would defeat Barack Obama in Pennsylvania – a state the president won by roughly 10 points in 2008."

Rendell warned the party not to select a "wacky" nominee, and stick with somebody "competent." He added, "Sometimes I think the Republican Party has a death wish."

"I actually agree with you on that," Ingraham replied. "In many ways I think the Republicans can screw things up easily."

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck expanded his business empire this week, announcing the launch of his "1791" clothing line.

Beck explained, "The main thrusts of the 1791 line are to remember where we came from as Americans ... and to restore values and efforts that have made America great."

Beck sided with Hank Williams Jr. this week, after the singer/songwriter got in trouble for making a clumsy analogy that mentioned "Hitler" and "Obama" (but contrary to what's been reported, he didn't compare the two.) Beck played excerpts of Williams' new song"Keep the Change," and condemned ESPN and his former employers at Fox News for throwing Williams under the bus (FREE webcam).

And now, from the left side of the dial ...

Did you ever think you'd live to see a cable news host question the "blackness" of a potential president?

That's what happened when Al Sharpton and Prof. Karen Hunter struggled to make sense of Herman Cain's campaign for the Republican nomination (FREE audio).

Weirder still, the producer of progressive Stephanie Miller's radio show made a bizarre on-air suggestion that Cain was an anti-Semite. It was so outrageous even Miller expressed her embarrassment and tried to change the subject.

While these outbursts are painful to listen to, they reveal the unprincipled desperation of people whose worldview is crumbling before their eyes. That's probably the only redeeming social value these radio programs have.


Kathy Shaidle is a blogging pioneer whose FiveFeetOfFury.com is now in its tenth year. Her most recent book – The Tyranny of Nice: How Canada Crushes Freedom in the Name of Human Rights (And Why It Matters to Americans) – features an introduction by Rush Limbaugh guest host Mark Steyn, author of After America 

Source:  WND

And Gov’t (FEMA) to Take Control of Communications Temporarily On 11/9/11… Does that Combination of #’s bother anyone else? And Will We Believe This Will Be Temporary?

FEMA Communication Takeover Test Scheduled for November 9

FEMA, the FCC, and Homeland Security plan to commandeer the airwaves next month. The Emergency Alert System (EAS) will be tested at 1 PM EST on November 9. EAS alerts are transmitted over radio and television broadcast stations, cable television and other media services.

Local and state EAS components are tested weekly and monthly, but this will be the first national test of the system. It is significant that FEMA will conduct the mandatory test.

Video:  Government To Take Control Of Communications Temporarily On 11/9/11

Also:  Government To Take Control Of Communications Temporarily On 11/9/11

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, April 8, 2011

The Blaze: House votes to Repeal Net Neutrality!

I am delighted to see them forging ahead w/promises to repeal. Keep the faith. Posted on the Blaze at 5p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Republicans adamant that the government keep its hands off the Internet passed a bill Friday to repeal federal rules barring Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on their networks.

Republicans, in voting to repeal rules on “network neutrality” set down by the Federal Communications Commission, said the FCC lacked the authority to promulgate the rules. They disputed the need to intervene in an already open Internet and warned that the rules would stifle investment in broadband systems.

“The FCC power grab would allow it to regulate any interstate communication service on barely more than a whim and without any additional input from Congress,” said Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., sponsor of the legislation. The Internet, he added, “is open and innovative thanks to the government’s hands-off approach.”

But in what has become a largely partisan battle, the Democrat-controlled Senate is not expected to go along with the House. Sen. John D. Rockefeller, D-W.Va., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, said he was “disappointed that House leadership wants to undo the integrity of the FCC’s process and unravel their good work.”

Even if it cleared Congress, the White House has threatened to veto a bill it said puts in doubt whether “the democratic spirit of the Internet will remain intact.”

Rep. Henry Waxman of California, top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, said nullifying the FCC rules would “give big phone and cable companies control over what websites Americans can visit, what applications they can run and what devices they can use.”

The vote to pass the bill, mainly along party lines, was 240-179.

The FCC rules were adopted on a 3-2 vote last December after years of debate over the federal role in ensuring a free and open Internet. The FCC’s three Democrats voted in support and its two Republicans opposed.

While generally seen as a compromise between technology companies fearing provider limitations on their access to the Internet and the big phone and cable companies insisting they need flexibility to manage Internet traffic, the rules drew a quick legal challenge from Verizon Communications Inc., which said the FCC had overstepped its authority.

A year ago a federal appeals court also ruled that the FCC exceeded its authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic Comcast said was clogging its network.

The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling services such as Skype and Web video services such as Netflix that could compete with their core operations. They require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content.

They do give providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with network congestion and unwanted traffic as long as they publicly disclose those practices. They do not specifically ban “paid prioritization,” where a provider might charge more for faster transmission of data, but they outlaw “unreasonable network discrimination.”

Wireless carriers are also barred from blocking access to any websites or competing services, but they are given more leeway to manage data traffic because wireless systems have less network bandwidth.

Even supporters acknowledged that the rules are mainly about preserving the status quo of a system that is generally working well.

But absent the rules, said Rep. Jared Polis, D-Colo., “there would be a major shift in power on the Internet to the broadband providers from the content providers.”

He said there was legitimate fear among nonprofit and religious groups that they would be consigned to a lower tier because they could not pay a higher price for premium service. “So your Web page from Nike might load faster than your Web page from the Catholic Church because, if there was tiered access, who would be more likely to pay for the speed of the access?”

He also cited the actions of autocratic states such as China in blocking Internet content in saying the government must make clear that providers cannot discriminate against customers because of political or philosophical differences.

—

The bill is H.J.Res. 37  -  Online:  Congress: http://thomas.loc.gov

Source: 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/house-votes-to-block-net-neutrality/

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)