By: The Voice of Reason |
Despite the fact that Obama’s “net neutrality” passed in 2016, President Donald Trump appears to have chosen a new FCC Chairman who vehemently opposes the whole premise, and if given the position as FCC Chairman, Trump‘s pick promises to “fire up the weed wacker” and remove numerous regulations currently put in place under Obama’s administration.
Why? Simply put, because Obama’s version of “net neutrality” ceased having much to do with actual net neutrality before it even began… Like most bills sold to the public by Barack Obama, “net neutrality” was a total lie. It was no more “neutral” than Obamacare was “affordable,” or the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was actually intended to help “protect consumers.”
Some of the more popular myths about “net neutrality” were that is was needed to help minorities and the underserved communities get better access to the Internet, encourage competition between broadband providers, protect us from Internet “Fast Lanes,” and who can forget the nonsense about how if “net neutrality” wasn’t passed, it would put Netflix out of business. Please!
In the following video, it debunks those myths and many others (also known as lies), that were spread as reasons for why we absolutely had to have Obama’s version of “net neutrality.” You’ll also find out what parts you were never “sold” on, and why we should be very thankful Trump’s pick for FCC Chairman is both a fierce anti-“net neutrality” opponent, and why he won’t need to be approved by the Senate either…
At the conclusion of this post are no less than links to over 50 examples of ways Obama and his administration did everything within their power to stifle or control free speech. Anyone who reads those articles, and still thinks the same Barack Obama wanted an “open, free, and neutral Internet,” is delusional.
Pai has served as a GOP commissioner at the FCC since 2012. He was widely expected to at least be named interim chairman after outgoing boss Tom Wheeler announced he would depart the agency on Inauguration Day.
Politico’s report, however, says Pai will be named Wheeler’s official replacement. A formal announcement could come as soon as Friday, according to the report. Pai would be able to take the mantle immediately since he has already been confirmed by the Senate as a commissioner under Barack Obama’s administration.
Spokespeople for Pai and the FCC did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
Broadly speaking, those laws regulate the internet as a public utility. More practically, they’re meant to keep internet service providers from blocking or slowing down certain content — which could benefit services owned by an ISP itself — or forcing others to pay fees to receive preferential treatment.
Larger telecom companies like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T have generally opposed the 2015 law, while smaller ISPs and internet companies like Netflix and Google, among others, have expressed support.
Pai has vocally dissented from most of Wheeler’s policies, however, and, along with fellow Republican commissioner Michael O’Rielly, he voted against the net-neutrality order in 2015. He also opposed Wheeler’s proposed reform of the set-top-box market.
Instead, he has maintained a strong desire to deregulate telecoms companies and lessen the reach of the FCC as a whole — a view that has often sat favorably with large ISPs.
In a December speech to the conservative-leaning Free State Foundation, for instance, Pai said he was “more confident than ever” that the current net-neutrality law’s “days are numbered,” and that he’d like the future FCC to “fire up the weed wacker” and remove numerous regulations currently in place.
A recent report from Multichannel News said that Trump‘s FCC transition team is aiming to follow along those lines by removing some of the FCC’s regulatory powers and shifting them to other agencies like the Federal Trade Commission. Wheeler has said that such moves could dramatically lessen the ability of large ISPs to be affected by federal oversight.
If named chairman, Pai would take control of a shorthanded FCC to start, with O’Rielly and Democrat Mignon Clyburn the only commissioners. Trump will have to name another Democrat and another Republican to fill out the agency.
If Pai is named Wheeler’s official replacement, however, it would allow him and the Republican-led Senate to put their plans in motion as soon as possible, according to Ernesto Falcon, legislative counsel at the nonprofit Electronic Frontier Foundation. Any changes to net neutrality laws and the like would take months, though, and include a period of public comment.
Like Wheeler, Pai has spent time directly serving telecom interests, having worked as a lawyer for Verizon from 2001 to 2003. (Notably, he’s also a former staffer for Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, a close Trump aide and Trump‘s pick for attorney general.)
If he follows through on his past rhetoric, however, his FCC is likely to take a sharp turn from what we’ve seen in the past four years.
WHAT EXACTLY IS NET NEUTRALITY?
Here’s what Obama wants to you think it is:
“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas.
That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.
Obama wants the FCC to “create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online.” (Could it be that this is a way for the GOVERNMENT to restrict what we can do or see online? Read on to find out.)
Here are the rules he is recommending:
No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.
No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.
Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.
No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth.
I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.
How does Obama want the FCC to do all of this?
His explanation, in his own words:
So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do.
To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services.
This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.
The “other vital services” Obama is referring to are public utilities like water and electricity. In other words, he wants the internet to be regulated the same way. All of that makes it sound like Obama is looking out for American citizens, doesn’t it? Let’s investigate.
Szoka is the president and founder of TechFreedom, a non-profit technology think tank in Washington, DC.
Before founding TechFreedom, Berin was a Senior Fellow and the Director of the Center for Internet Freedom at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, and previously practiced Internet & communications law.
Please visit TechFreedom’s net neutrality myth-busting website Don’t Break the Net for a more detailed explanation of Title II and what reclassifying the internet would mean for consumers.
Here is Szoka’s interview with Woods..
Later, the Cato Institute spoke with Szoka:
Is Obama exploiting the confusion over net neutrality in an attempt to push draconian Title II regulation – and, ultimately, more taxes – upon citizens? It sure seems that way. He is misrepresenting what “net neutrality” actually is and what Title II regulations would actually do.
The following is from TechFreedom’s November of 2014 media statement titled Obama Cynically Exploits Confusion over Title II, Misses Opportunity to Lead on Legislative Deal:
This morning, President Obama called on the FCC to “reclassify” broadband under Title II of the Communications Act so it can ban all paid prioritization. TechFreedom President Berin Szoka responded as follows:
Title II means the very opposite of net neutrality.
Even under Title II, the FCC can’t legally ban all paid prioritization — only regulate it to make sure that prices are just and reasonable.
Title II would raise a host of other problems, including choking broadband competition, inviting regulation of the rest of the Internet and validating Russia and China’s push to have the International Telecommunications Union regulate the Internet as a telecom service.
Obama’s statement is simply a cynical political ploy, a way of playing to activists on the radical Left who have built mailing lists and a political movement on the most absolutist conception of net neutrality.
The “Net Neutrality” debate has always been about two questions.
1. First, how to craft a non-discrimination rule that bans anti-competitive behavior — but doesn’t ultimately harm consumers?
That means policing paid prioritization under flexible rules, not banning it.
2. Second, how to prevent net neutrality from leading to larger regulation of the Internet?
That means barring Title II, clarifying that Section 706 isn’t a grant of authority, and giving the FCC narrow authority to deal with truly harmful broadband practices.
In an article titled, Net Neutrality—and Obama’s Scheme for the Internet—Are Lousy Ideas:
We know, indisputably, thanks to the heroic disclosures by Edward Snowden and the tireless work of journalists like Laura Poitras and Glenn Greenwald, that the federal government is attempting to use the Internet to build a global Panopticon, capable of accessing everyone’s personal information at any time for any reason or no reason.
We also know that one way the government is trying to accomplish this is by securing the cooperation of private companies.
You can attempt to thwart surveillance by using encryption—
but encryption only protects data in transit. Once it’s received and decrypted, it’s an open book.
This is exactly what happened to Google, which had its internal traffic bugged by the NSA.
The bottom line? Obama’s idea of “net neutrality” is not “neutral” and is not consumer-friendly. Not one bit. Here’s a heavily-researched video by Stefan Molyneux on the history of the internet and FCC regulations, related corruption, and why net neutrality is not good for consumers. It is long, but worth watching.
THE VOICE OF REASON is the pen name of Michael DePinto, a graduate of Capital University Law School, and an attorney in Florida. Having worked in the World Trade Center, along with other family and friends, Michael was baptized by fire into the world of politics on September 11, 2001. Michael’s political journey began with tuning in religiously to whatever the talking heads on television had to say, then Michael became a “Tea-Bagging” activist as his liberal friends on the Left would say, volunteering within the Jacksonville local Tea Party, and most recently Michael was sworn in as an attorney. Today, Michael is a major contributor to www.BeforeItsNews.com, he owns and operates www.thelastgreatstand.com, where Michael provides what is often very ‘colorful’ political commentary, ripe with sarcasm, no doubt the result of Michael’s frustration as he feels we are witnessing the end of the American Empire. The topics Michael most often weighs in on are: Martial Law, FEMA Camps, Jade Helm, Economic Issues, Government Corruption, and Government Conspiracy.