FCC Expands Government’s Control Over the Internet

Divided FCC Adopts Rules to 'Protect' Web Traffic, But Who Will Protect Us from the 'Protectors'

December 21, 2010

AP – A divided Federal Communications Commission has approved new rules meant to prohibit broadband companies from interfering with Internet traffic flowing to their customers.

The 3-2 vote Tuesday marks a major victory for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who has spent more than a year trying to craft a compromise.

The FCC's three Democrats voted to pass the rules, while the two Republicans opposed them, calling them unnecessary regulation. The new rules are likely to face intense scrutiny on Capitol Hill once Republicans take over the House. Meanwhile, public interest groups decried the regulations as too weak, particularly for wireless systems.

Known as "net neutrality," the rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, such as those from rivals.

The rules require broadband providers to let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wired networks — including online calling services, Internet video and other Web applications that compete with their core businesses. But the rules give broadband providers flexibility to manage data on their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic including spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.

The regulations prohibit unreasonable network discrimination — a category that FCC officials say would most likely include services that favor traffic from the broadband providers themselves or traffic from business partners that can pay for priority. The rules do, however, leave the door open for broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services are separate from the public Internet.

In addition, the regulations prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any websites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices, and require them to disclose their network management practices, too. But the rules give wireless companies would get more leeway to manage data traffic because wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks.

Genachowski said the regulations will prohibit broadband providers from abusing their control over the on-ramps that consumers use to get onto the Internet. He said the companies won't be able to determine where their customers can go and what they can do online.

"Today, for the first time, we are adopting rules to preserve basic Internet values," Genachowski said. "For the first time, we'll have enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness."

Still, the final rules came as a disappointment to public interest groups. Even Genachowski's two Democratic colleagues on the five-member FCC were disappointed, though they still voted to adopt the rules after concluding some safeguards are better than none.

They warn that the new regulations may not be strong enough to prevent broadband companies from picking winners and losers on the Internet, particularly on wireless systems, which will have more limited protections. They also worry that the rules don't do enough to ensure that broadband providers cannot favor their own traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority — resulting in a two-tiered Internet.

"Today's action could — and should — have gone further," said Michael Copps, one of the other two Democrats on the commission. But, he added, the regulations do represent some progress "to put consumers — not Big Phone or Big Cable — in control of their online experiences."

At the same time, the two Republicans on the FCC worried that the rules will discourage phone and cable companies from continuing to upgrade their networks by making it difficult for them to earn a healthy return on their investments. They also insist that the regulations are intended to fix a problem that does not exist, as all the major broadband providers have already pledged not to discriminate against Internet traffic on their networks.

"The Internet will be no more open tomorrow than it is today," said Meredith Attwell Baker, a Republican.

Republicans on Capitol Hill vowed to try to block the new regulations. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, plans to introduce a "resolution of disapproval" to try to overturn what she called "troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC."

Robert McDowell, the FCC's other Republican, predicted that the FCC will face court challenges to its regulatory authority, too. In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the agency had exceeded its existing authority in sanctioning Comcast Corp. for discriminating against online file-sharing traffic on its network — violating broad net neutrality principles first established by the FCC in 2005.

Those principles serve as a foundation for the formal regulations adopted Tuesday.

FCC to Approve Net Neutrality Rules Tuesday

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling. - Robert M. McDowell, The FCC’s Threat to Internet Freedom, The Wall Street Journal, December 20, 2010

December 20, 2010

CNet - The Federal Communications Commission is set to vote on official Net neutrality rules tomorrow, which the agency claims will provide consumers, service providers, device makers, and application developers clear rules of the road for the Internet.

With the support of all three Democrats on the FCC, the regulation is set to pass. And the vote will mark the next step in what has been a politically charged debate between telephone and cable companies and consumer groups advocating for a free and open Internet.

The five-member commission, which is made up of three Democrats and two Republicans, has been working on developing these official rules of the road for more than a year. In September 2009, Chairman Julius Genachowski suggested adding to the original Internet Openness principles adopted by the commission under former Chairman Michael Powell.

The debate of what should be included in the new rules has raged ever since. Democratic supporters and consumer advocates along with some Internet companies have pushed for more stringent regulations. Meanwhile, Congressional Republicans and major telephone and cable companies have lobbied for lighter regulation.

Genachowski, who offered a preview of the plan earlier this month, has attempted to give each side a little of what it wants in the new rules, but neither camp has said they are completely satisfied. In fact, the two Democrats on the commission, Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, have been reluctant to go along with the chairman's plan because they believe it may be too favorable to major broadband providers. But FCC officials say the chairman has worked closely with these commissioners to satisfy their concerns. And now it looks as though the two Democrats will support the new rules, albeit somewhat reluctantly.

Clyburn released a statement today stating she will vote in favor of the new rules. Copps also said he'd vote for the rules, but in a statement today he noted that he believes things are missing from the order.

"While I cannot vote wholeheartedly to approve the item, I will not block it by voting against it. I instead plan to concur so that we may move forward," Copps said in a statement.

Meanwhile, Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell, who has long opposed Net neutrality regulation, said in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal on Monday that the new rules are trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

"On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation," McDowell wrote. "The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom."

He went on to say:

"Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that Net neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure."

Senior representatives from the FCC held a press conference this afternoon to provide an overview of what the order will actually say. At a high level, there are three provisions that will become official FCC regulation.

The first rule is about transparency. Network operators of both fixed and wireless networks will be required to disclose to consumers, content providers, and device makers information that will be necessary for them to deploy services. In other words, if a broadband network operator is using network management techniques that affect an application or if a wireless broadband network provider doesn't allow a certain type of application, the service provider must provide information about the requirements for its network.

The second Net neutrality rule prohibits the blocking of traffic on the Internet. The rule applies to both fixed wireline broadband network operators, as well as to wireless providers. But the stipulations for each type of network are slightly different.

For wired networks, operators will not be allowed to block any lawful content, services, applications, or devices on their network. For wireless providers, the rule is somewhat limited and only prohibits the blocking of access to Web sites or applications that specifically compete with a carrier's telephony voice or video services.

The blocking rule for wireless and wireline networks also includes allowances for reasonable network management. This means that wireline and wireless broadband providers will be able to reasonably manage their networks during times of congestion to ensure every user can adequately access services.

And finally, the last rule applies only to fixed broadband providers. It prohibits fixed wireline broadband providers from unreasonably discriminating against traffic on their network.

Net neutrality zealots have already expressed dismay in Copps' support of the new rules.

"Internet users across America will have lost a hero if Commissioner Copps caves to pressure from big business and supports FCC Chairman Genachowski's fake Net neutrality rules--rules written by AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon, the very companies the public is depending on the FCC to regulate strongly," Jason Rosenbaum, the senior online campaigns director for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement.

But not everyone is upset that a compromise appears to have been reached.

Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.), released a statement today applauding the three Democratic commissioners for reaching a consensus on the rules.

"While he (Commissioner Copps) and Commissioner Clyburn, as well as many of the champions of network neutrality, including myself, would have supported a stricter order, I commend them for rising to the moment and making possible very meaningful progress to preserve the freedom to communicate and compete over the Internet," he said in the statement. "I also join them in commending Chairman Genachowski for his inclusive, thoughtful, and creative work in bringing parties together, airing all points of view, and finding a principled center."

Net Neutrality, the FCC, Wikileaks and the Future of Internet Freedom

December 10, 2010

NaturalNews - Regardless of what you think about the Wikileaks release of state secrets, there’s no debating the astonishing fact that the internet made these leaks possible. Without the internet, no single organization such as Wikileaks would have been able to so widely propagate secret government information and make it public. In the old model of information distribution – centralized mainstream media newspapers and news broadcasts – such information would have been tightly controlled thanks to government pressure.

The FCC is trying to “fake” its way into false authority over the internet.

But the internet allows individual information publishers to bypass the censorship of government. In the case of Wikileaks, it allowed an Australian citizen to embarrass the U.S. government while sitting at a laptop computer in the United Kingdom.

Governments don’t like to be embarrassed. They don’t like their secrets aired on the internet. Sure, it’s okay for governments to tap all of your secrets by monitoring your phone calls, emails and web browsing habits, but every government seeks to protect its own secrets at practically any cost. That’s why the upshot of this Wikileaks release may be that governments will now start to look for new ways to censor and control the internet in order to prevent such information leaks from happening in the future.

What governments around the world are suddenly beginning to realize is that a free internet is ultimately incompatible with government secrets, and secrets are essential to any government that wants to remain in power. That’s because, as even Noam Chomsky stated in this DemocracyNow video interview, most government secrets are based on information governments wouldn’t want their people to discover – secrets that might threaten the legitimacy of government if the people found out the truth.

How the FCC plans to seize authority over the internet

As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the FCC is now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the same way it has long exercised content censorship authority over broadcast television and radio.

The reason you can’t say those seven dirty words on broadcast television, in other words, is because the FCC controls broadcast television content and can simply revoke the broadcast licenses of any television station that refuses to comply. This is the same tactic, in the internet world, of yanking a web site’s domain name, which the Department of Homeland Security has already begun doing over the last several weeks.

The FCC also controls content on the radio and can yank the broadcast licenses of any radio stations that refuse to comply with its content censorship. This is why operators of “pirate radio stations” are dealt with so harshly: For the government to allow any radio station to operate outside its censorship and control is to invite dissent.

The internet, of course, has been operating freely and without any real government censorship for roughly two decades. In that time, it has grown to be what is arguably the most influential medium in the world for information distribution. Most importantly, the internet is the medium of information freedom that is not controlled by any government.

The U.S. government wants to change all that, and they’ve dispatched the FCC to reign in the “freedoms” of the internet.

How to crush internet Free Speech

The first step to the FCC’s crushing of internet freedom is to assert authority over the internet by claiming to run the show. The FCC, of course, has no legal authority over the internet. It was only granted authority in 1934 over broadcast communications in the electromagnetic spectrum – you know, radio waves and antennas, that kind of thing.

There is nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 that grants the FCC any authority over the internet because obviously the internet didn’t exist then, and it would have been impossible for lawmakers in the 1930′s to imagine the internet as it operates today.

So instead of following the law, the FCC is trying to “fake” its way into false authority over the internet by claiming authority in the current “net neutrality” debate. By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to control and censor the internet.

This is why “net neutrality” is a threat to internet freedom. It’s not because of anything to do with net neutrality itself, but rather with the FCC’s big power grab in its assertion that it has authority over websites just like it has authority over broadcast radio.

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the ‘net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here’s how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls “information traitors,” which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can’t be a traitor since he’s not even American in the first place, but don’t expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include “information terrorists” which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website www.LewRockwell.com (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like NaturalNews.com which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma’s high-profit pharmaceuticals.

The way this will come about is that the FCC may require a license to publish health information on the web, in much the same way that states currently license doctors to practice medicine. This is how conventional medicine has operated its monopoly for so long, by the way: By controlling the licensing of doctors at the state level. Any doctor who dares prescribe nutritional supplements or suggest that medication might be harmful to a patient immediately gets stripped of his license to practice medicine (and thereby put out of business). The FCC will likely do the same thing across the internet. Sites that publish health information without a license will be deemed “a threat to public health” and be seized by the government.

The first target? Anti-vaccine websites. Vaccines are so crucial to the continuation of disease and medical enslavement in America that any site questioning the current vaccine mythology will be deemed a threat to public health – or perhaps even a “terrorism” organization.

Essentially, once the FCC has gained power and authority over the internet, it will use that power to push a Big Government / Big Business agenda that censors the truth, keeps people trapped in a system of disinformation, and silences anyone who challenges the status quo.

The FCC is poised to become the FDA of internet information, banning alternative speech and enforcing an information monopoly engineered by powerful corporations.

Think of the FCC as the new the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell’s novel 1984.

This is not about net neutrality, it’s about the FCC power grab

Remember, I am not arguing here for or against the principle of net neutrality itself, but rather warning about the FCC’s imposition of false authority over the internet in the first place. The idea of net neutrality has merits, but granting the FCC the power to control the internet is a disastrously bad idea that will only end in censorship and “information tyranny” – especially now that governments around the world are witnessing the “dangers” of information freedom via the Wikileaks fiasco.

If there’s one thing governments hate, it’s real freedom. Sure, they all talk about freedom and publicly claim their allegiance to it, but behind the scenes what they really want is total information control. That’s because freedom gives people the ability to say what they want, to whomever they want, and even to oppose the doctrine of the government.

Just look at China and how it has censored the internet to the point where you can’t even log in to Facebook from that country.

Governments hate freedom because freedom threatens centralized power and control over the People. And because governments hate freedom, they also hate the internet as long as it’s free. This is why bloggers and internet journalists are right now imprisoned all over the world for merely posting the truth.

As Noam Chomsky said in his DemocracyNow interview (link above), what the recent Wikileaks releases really show is that the U.S. government has “a profound hatred for democracy.”

It also happens to have a profound hatred for actual freedom, because people who are free to think for themselves and write whatever they want are always going to be a threat to a government that wants people to conform, obey and acquiesce.

All government agencies seek to expand their power

What do the FCC, FDA, TSA, DEA, FTC and USDA all have in common?

They all want more power. They want more authority, bigger budgets and more control over the world around them. They are like cancer tumors, growing in size and toxicity while they consume more and more by stealing resources from a healthy host. The bigger these cancer tumors become, the more dangerous they become to the health of the host body, and the more urgently they need to be held in check or excised from the body entirely.

There is no such thing as a government agency that wants to be smaller, with shrinking budgets and fewer employees on the taxpayer payroll. Government departments – just like people – incessantly seek more power even at the expense of freedom among those they claim to serve. And this move by the FCC to assume control over the internet is one of the most dangerous power grabs yet witnessed in the short history of the information age.

By the way, one of the reasons we created and launched www.NaturalNews.TV was because we wanted a video site that could not be turned off by YouTube. You’ve probably heard the horror stories of famous content producers like Alex Jones having their YouTube accounts suddenly terminated. NaturalNews.TV is a safe haven for alternative health content that cannot be turned off by a large corporation that doesn’t recognize the value of health freedom.

Feel free to participate by uploading videos or viewing the many thousands of free videos available right now at www.NaturalNews.TV

By the way, I recommend reading another outstanding article on this topic written by John Naughton at The Guardian. Here’s a taste of what he writes:

Consider, for instance, how the views of the US administration have changed in just a year. On 21 January, secretary of state Hillary Clinton made a landmark speech about internet freedom, in Washington DC, which many people welcomed and most interpreted as a rebuke to China for its alleged cyberattack on Google. “Information has never been so free,” declared Clinton. “Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable.”

She went on to relate how, during his visit to China in November 2009, Barack Obama had “defended the right of people to freely access information, and said that the more freely information flows the stronger societies become. He spoke about how access to information helps citizens to hold their governments accountable, generates new ideas, and encourages creativity.” Given what we now know, that Clinton speech reads like a satirical masterpiece.

Wikileaks Scandal Is a Big and Dangerous U.S. Intelligence Con Job Which Will Be Used to Police the Internet