Archive for Net Neutrality

Alex Jones: Secret Bilderberg Agenda Leaked by Mole

Posted in Alex Jones, Big Brother, Net Neutrality with tags , , , , , , , , , on June 9, 2011 by saynsumthn


The elite now meeting behind closed door in the Switzerland are pushing for a wider war and incalculable suffering in the Middle East.

The money masters have long profited from war and mass murder. Nathan Rothschild made a financial bet on Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo and while also funding the Duke of Wellington’s peninsular campaign against Napoleon. The House of Rothschild financed the Prussian War, the Crimean War and the British attempt to seize the Suez Canal from the French and also financed the Mexican War and the Civil War in the U.S.

In addition to worrying about Congress waking up to the Libyan scam, the global elite is also concerned about a diverse liberty movement that has grown exponentially with the help of an open and free internet.

In response, the pocketed pawns in Congress have introduced a raft of bills over the last few months designed to take down the internet and blunt its impact as a medium for alternative news and information….

Finally, the Bilderbergers will work on an effort to sucker an already economically besieged American public into further fantastic debt producing bankster bailouts, specifically for Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and other member EU nations sliding toward bankruptcy and social disruption on a monumental scale.

Ron Paul On WikiLeaks “This Is A Deliberate Attempt To Close Down The Internet”

Posted in free speech, Net Neutrality with tags , , , , , , , on December 15, 2010 by saynsumthn

Journalism in Peril? FCC commissioner calling for Government control of media

Posted in Censorship, Fairness Doctrine, Net Neutrality with tags , , , , , , , on December 3, 2010 by saynsumthn

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits Congress from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion”, impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

FCC Commissioner Wants to Test the ‘Public Value’ of Every Broadcast Station
Friday, December 03, 2010
By Susan Jones

( – American journalism is in “grave peril,” FCC Commissioner Michael Copps says, and to bolster “traditional media,” he said the Federal Communications Commission should conduct a “public value test” of every commercial broadcast station at relicensing time.

In a speech at the Columbia University School of Journalism in New York on Thursday, Copps also said station relicensing should happen every four years instead of the current eight.

“If a station passes the Public Value Test, it of course keeps the license it has earned to use the people’s airwaves,” Copps said. “If not, it goes on probation for a year, renewable for an additional year if it demonstrates measurable progress. If the station fails again, give the license to someone who will use it to serve the public interest.”

Ever since Barack Obama became president, prominent conservatives have warned about liberal efforts to squelch conservative and Christian talk-radio.

Although Copps has said the FCC will not reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, his prescription for “testing” commercial broadcast stations (see below) will alarm defenders of free speech and free enterprise.

Copps said the FCC and Congress in the future will need to examine the rules governing the structure of media ownership. And he advocated increasing support for public broadcasting, which he described as “the jewel of our media landscape.”

Copps was introduced to the audience at Columbia by veteran PBS journalist Bill Moyers, something that thrilled Copps: “No one stands higher in my pantheon of citizen heroes than you, and I can think of no journalist, contemporary or at any time across the annals of our past, who has contributed so much to democracy’s dialogue,” Copps said of the liberal Moyers.

Full report here

REVERSAL ON: TSA to Block “Controversial Opinion” on the Web

Posted in free speech, Internet, Net Neutrality with tags , , , , , , , , on July 7, 2010 by saynsumthn

CBS: TSA Reverses “Controversial Opinion” Web Policy

Responding to a story first reported by CBS News on Saturday, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) today said it, “uses a security technology to limit access to categories of web sites that pose an increased security risk. TSA does not block access to critical commentary about the organization…”

According to an internal email obtained by CBS News, the TSA implemented a new policy blocking its employees from accessing any websites that contain a “controversial opinion” on work computers.

“This policy is terrible,” said Louis Maltby, President of the National Workrights Institute, a non-profit group that advocates for workplace rights. Maltby points out that anything on the internet could be deemed controversial and if blocked, in some cases, could cross the line of violating a worker’s right to information.

Employees of the TSA, responsible for nation’s airport security, were informed of the new policy Friday in an internal memo. The memo states that websites with a “controversial opinion” are “inappropriate for government access” in addition to any websites that have “Chat/Messaging”, “Criminal activity”, “Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content” and “Gaming” – all of which are now being blocked.

In response, the TSA sent the following statement to CBS News Tuesday:

TSA routinely makes improvements to our information technology systems to stay ahead of evolving cyber threats to keep our systems secure. As part of this continued effort, TSA uses a security technology to limit access to categories of web sites that pose an increased security risk. TSA does not block access to critical commentary about the organization and in fact expressly created the TSA IdeaFactory and the TSA Blog to promote diverse opinions. TSA employees will be able to access web sites required for work purposes.”

In additon, a TSA spokesperson says the “TSA Blog was founded in 2008 to engage the public in an open dialogue and is open to both the public and employees.”

Original Report:

**Updated Blog 8:20 pm, 7/6/10: TSA Reverses “Controversial Opinion” Web Policy (ABOVE)
**Updated 7/6/10 with TSA response. Read the blog here.
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is blocking certain websites from the federal agency’s computers, including halting access by staffers to any Internet pages that contain a “controversial opinion,” according to an internal email obtained by CBS News.
The email was sent to all TSA employees from the Office of Information Technology on Friday afternoon.
It states that as of July 1, TSA employees will no longer be allowed to access five categories of websites that have been deemed “inappropriate for government access.”
The categories include:
??? Chat/Messaging
??? Controversial opinion
??? Criminal activity
??? Extreme violence (including cartoon violence) and gruesome content
??? Gaming
The email does not specify how the TSA will determine if a website expresses a “controversial opinion.”
There is also no explanation as to why controversial opinions are being blocked, although the email stated that some of the restricted websites violate the Employee Responsibilities and Conduct policy.
The TSA did not return calls seeking comment by publication time.

Google censors “Alex Jones” for speaking against President Obama

Posted in Alex Jones, Censorship, Internet, Media Bias, Net Neutrality, New World Order with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 18, 2010 by saynsumthn

Alex Jones exposes Google ban on ‘hate’ merchants
Aaron Dykes & Alex Jones
February 18, 2010

Google and other powerful forces are testing the limits of Internet censorship on all conceivable fronts. Not only is content filtering taking place at a national and regional level, first in places like China, and now Australia, but policies limiting individual speech agreed upon at the corporate level and above are placed upon individuals, who have no say in the matter.
Thus web participation is subject to a set of criteria. Google’s merchant policies have blacklisted Alex Jones and other outlets like him for unjustified reasons and selectively blocked his DVDs from being sold through their venue.

Vague terms like “anti” and “violence” have been used to block and, The Obama Deception, the Fall of the Republic, and other entities critical of policies on the part of governments, NGOs, world institutions, etc. Yet no specific complaint or ‘charge’ has been declared.

Its abuses may be partially cloaked behind its distinctions as a private business, but Google, expanding its domination of the web every day, has spread out and now controls many actions of individuals. Watch the video, and join Alex in fighting back against the incremental approach to control and censor the Internet. Keep the Internet free, and support the websites dedicated to exposing abuses and working towards free access, privacy and the uncontrolled flow of information, alternative news and communication.

Broadband plan: Net effect – Info Control?

Posted in Czar, free speech, Mark Lloyd, Net Neutrality, Obama with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 28, 2009 by saynsumthn

Obama’s Media Control Strategy

By Cliff Kincaid
Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of Accuracy in Media, and can be contacted at

You may not have noticed that the Obama Administration, in addition to trying to seize control of the health care and energy sectors, is implementing a national “broadband plan” to redefine the media and transform America’s system of government. It’s designed, they say, to provide “open government and civic engagement.” But it looks increasingly like an excuse for the federal government to control the Internet and access to information and even tell us what is truth.

Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute recently explained at a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) “National Broadband Plan Workshop” that it is necessary to have “a common space with shared facts.” Armed with $7.2 billion of “stimulus” money, the federal government is going to provide this. It looks like various progressive groups are lining up at the public trough for their share of the loot. They have in mind what the George Soros-funded Free Press calls “an alternative media infrastructure.”

If you think we already have that, with public TV and radio, think again. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has received $8 billion in federal tax dollars since it was created in 1967, is not considered radical enough by these folks. The Free Press favors an additional $50 billion “Public Media Trust fund” financed by a tax on home electronic devices. It also wants the federally-funded AmeriCorps to finance jobs for journalists.

A new national broadband plan, combined with the just-announced FCC plan for “net neutrality,” or regulating access to the Internet, provides the opportunity for the federal government to define a “new public square” with a “common space with shared facts,” as Ornstein put it at the August 6 FCC event. He explained, “It’s something that was easier when we had three broadcast channels and virtually everybody in the society tuned into them.”

Those were the days, you may remember, when Walter Cronkite claimed “That’s the way it is,” and many people believed him. We know better now. But Ornstein seems to be pining for the “good old days” when Cronkite and other liberals dominated the dissemination of news and information.

These days we have conservative talk radio, Fox News, and alternatives to the “mainstream” media on the Internet. It is obvious that the Obama Administration and its progressive backers don’t appreciate this new state of affairs.

Ornstein contrasted what can be, under federal direction, to what we are witnessing “now on health reform,” when so many dissenting voices are being heard. He added, “It becomes much more difficult when you have a cacophonous system with fragmented areas of communication.” And that “cacophony and fragmentation” is most apparent on the Internet, he said.

In other words, those naughty conservatives are standing in the way of Obama’s health care reform plan.

While the Internet is apparently confusing people with too much information, Ornstein said that the Internet also offers “multiple opportunities” to “develop a public square.” He made these remarks at an event presided over by Obama’s FCC chairman Julius Genachowski. The assumption of the exercise was that the federal government, under the cover of a national broadband plan, should not only regulate the Internet but provide new media for the public.

Assisting Genachowski is Mark Lloyd, Associate General Counsel and chief diversity officer at the agency. Lloyd used to work at the Benton Foundation, which is assisting this effort and previously issued a report recommending that the Obama Administration “s\should adopt policies to ensure that all Americans” have the ability to:

· “Know when you need information to help resolve a problem;

· “Know from whom, when, where, and how to seek that needed information;

· “Know how to differentiate between authentic and unauthentic information;

· “Know how to organize information and interpret it correctly once retrieved; and

· “Know how to use the information to solve the problem or make the decision.”

The idea of the federal government telling people how to “differentiate between authentic and inauthentic information” is frightening. But this is part of Benton’s “Action Plan for America.”

Not surprisingly, the Benton home page features a tribute to the late Walter Cronkite from President Obama. Like Ornstein, it longs for the days when the liberal media dominated the news business.

Once Mark Lloyd left the Benton Foundation for the Center for American Progress, the two organizations collaborated on a letter demanding that the FCC require that broadcasters meet “public interest” obligations, provide access to the media by various groups, and “enhance political discourse.” All of these measures are designed to give left-wing “progressives” more access to the media.

Now Lloyd is in a position to bring this about through federal regulation.

What we really need in this country,” Lloyd says, “is… a competitive alternative to commercial broadcasting” that would be supported by the public and “fully financed.”

It sounds suspiciously like the “new public square” is the “public option” for the media. But so far there seems to be little debate or even discussion over what they have in store for us, and how they have already obtained $7.2 billion for this extreme makeover not only of our media but our system of government.

Congressional Black Caucus, Blue Dogs Join Conservatives to Oppose Internet Regulations ( Net Neutrality)

Posted in free speech, Net Neutrality with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 22, 2009 by saynsumthn

( –
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Two groups of House Democrats that are not always on the same political page have joined forces to oppose federal regulation of Internet traffic currently under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The FCC is moving forward with plans to approve “net neutrality,” rules that essentially would prohibit Internet service providers from charging add-on fees to certain Web sites for accessing their networks. Advocates of net neutrality argue that without new rules, a duopoly of cable and telephone companies can “discriminate” against certain Web content.

But 72 House Democrats, all members of either the centrist Blue Dog Caucus or the more liberal Congressional Black Caucus, signed a letter to the FCC charging that “net neutrality” regulations would stifle competition.

We remain suspicious of conclusions based on slogans rather than substance, and of policies that restrict and inhibit the very innovation and growth that we all seek to achieve,” the members of each caucus said in a joint letter to the FCC last Thursday.

Opponents of the regulations say the rules would likely slow down the Web, make it tougher to block spam, create the need for more government bureaucrats as new bureaucratic rules tend to require, and discourage investment in broadband technology.

Democrats such as Reps. Ed Markey of Massachusetts and Henry Waxman of California have supported the regulation. Republicans have mostly led the opposition, with Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Charles Grassley of Iowa writing a letter to the FCC last week cautioning against the regulation.

But the letter from Democratic House members last week used some of the same arguments Republicans have advanced.

A decade ago, broadband was a nascent service, and only one percent of U.S. households connected to the Internet through broadband lines,” the letter from Democratic lawmakers said. “Today, by contrast, roughly two-thirds of Americans connect through high speed connections that are available to 95 percent of households.”

Signatories included prominent Democrats such as Reps. Health Shuler of North Carolina, Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas, Bernie Thompson of Mississippi, Baron Hill of Indiana, Ed Towns of New York, Silvestre Reyes of Texas, and Alcee Hastings of Florida.

While we have further to go as a nation in extending the benefits of broadband to all, it is our strong belief that continued progress in expanding the reach and capabilities of broadband networks will require the commission to reiterate, and not repudiate, its historic commitment to competition, private investment and a restrained regulatory approach,” the letter continued.

Supporters of net neutrality rules include the left-wing and the media reform group Free Press. Opponents include the pro-free market group Freedom Works and the conservative Family Research Council.

Primarily, the battle lines are drawn between ISPs such as Verizon and AT&T that want the freedom to charge fees to high volume Web sites to expedite connection speed, and major Web companies such as Google or that have a lot of traffic but want to avoid paying those fees.

The letter from the CBC and the Blue Dogs sparked anger from net neutrality supporters such as Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a liberal advocacy group on digital issues. She accused them of betraying their constituents.

It’s a pity that 72 members of the Blue Dog Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus are deserting one of the fundamental planks of President Obama’s platform — a free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet,” Sohn said in a statement.

The people who those members of Congress represent are the most at risk from the closed, controlling Internet that the phone and cable companies want,” Sohn continued.

The constituents of these members of Congress have the fewest choices of providers and access to the least competition. They have the lowest Internet data speeds; they have the diminished opportunity to use the Web to its fullest potential. They are being betrayed,” she said.

Speaking to the Brookings Institute on Sept. 21, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stressed the need for net neutrality rules.

I am convinced that there are few goals more essential in the communications landscape than preserving and maintaining an open and robust Internet,” Genachowski said.

In view of these challenges and opportunities, and because it is vital that the Internet continue to be an engine of innovation, economic growth, competition and democratic engagement, I believe the FCC must be a smart cop on the beat preserving a free and open Internet,” he added.

But FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell strongly disagreed, saying there is no need for new Internet regulation.

The premise outlined in Chairman Genachowski’s speech is that the Internet is broken and the government has to fix it,” McDowell told a gathering at the conservative Heritage Foundation last week.

For the average consumer, are they being frustrated in some way, other than their broadband speed is too slow?” McDowell said. “Can they go to any site and download anything they want? For the vast majority of consumers, the answer is yes.

So if you want to envision a place where the Internet helps foster democracy, where it helps foster prosperity, where it can be a tool for raising the human condition, in a free and open manner, if you want to envision that, I think that exists today,” he added.

Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon Wireless argue that technological innovation is putting more and more pressure on bandwidth capabilities. As more people demand more services, such as streaming video at greater speed, the ISPs have to make more financial investments for Internet infrastructure.

The sites that tend to clog up the information highway the most – those with high volume – are most likely to be asked to pay an add-on fee to the ISP if there are no net neutrality rules.

Instead of passing the costs of those investments to the customer, the big ISPs could ask Google or Microsoft to pay extra for the use of its network. That’s because Google and similar high volume Web sites use more bandwidth than smaller sites. These high volume sites, thus, could slow connections speeds for users accessing other lower-traffic Web sites.

On the other hand, if a net neutrality regulation or law is passed, the ISP could not recoup more of those costs from Google, Microsoft or other tech giants. So the cost of adding lanes to the information highway would be passed on to consumers.

Advocates of net neutrality point to three major instances of what they consider abuse by the cable and telephone companies.

In 2004, the North Carolina telephone company, Madison River Communications, blocked its customers from using the popular Internet telephone service Vonage. Vonage complained to the FCC, and almost immediately the commission stepped in. Madison River paid a $15,000 fine to the FCC to settle the matter and vowed to stop blocking Vonage or any other competitors.

In September 2007, Verizon Wireless rejected a request from the NARAL Pro Choice America for a five-digit “short code.” These codes allow users interested in hearing messages from a business, movement, or politician to sign up and receive free text messages. The reason Verizon gave for the refusal is that it “does not accept issue-oriented (abortion, war, etc.) programs.”

Upon reversing itself, Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson told The New York Times that the policy imposed in this instance resulted from an “incorrect interpretation” of a policy “designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.” Nelson said. “The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect.”

In late 2007, Comcast slowed the traffic for some subscribers who were downloading large files that were clogging the network. BitTorrent, creator of a popular file sharing program, allows users to exchange these big files on the Web. Those big files use a lot of capacity, which slows down other Web traffic.

To tackle this problem, Comcast slowed down the transmission of the big files shared on BitTorrent. This allowed its other traffic to move more quickly, but BitTorrent complained.

Comcast and BitTorrent worked out an agreement in April 2008, without a government solution, which allowed file-sharers to use Comcast’s network and not slow down the service for other users. However, the FCC still ordered Comcast to stop blocking or slowing files. Comcast is appealing the FCC order in federal court.

The three cases cited time and time again were resolved,” McDowell told “There are an incredible number of net communications every day. If we are looking at any misconduct, whether it’s intentional or not, as soon as the spotlight is shined on them, it would go away. We have more and more competition.

“If there is a bad actor out there acting in an anti-competitive way, then consumers would have a choice of other Internet providers,” McDowell added.