FCC breaks Obama’s promise, allows corporate censorship online with fake Net Neutrality

[Ton]

Absolutely unbelievable... this CANNOT happen.

Minutes ago, the FCC passed new rules — written by corporations — that will end Net Neutrality. For the first time in history, the U.S. government approved corporate censorship of the Internet, putting the future of online free speech at risk. Unbelievably, the person leading the charge was Obama appointee Julius Genachowski (known in some circles as Judas GenaComcast for his historic sellout and notorious industry-friendly attitude).



These rules also violate President Obama’s campaign promise to protect Net Neutrality and appoint an FCC Commissioner who would do the same, but some media are reporting the corporate spin that this is a “Net Neutrality compromise.” The White House is trying to convince us this isn’t a sellout as well with their wholly supportive statement.



This is not a compromise and it doesn’t fulfill Obama’s campaign promise — not even close. There’s no such thing as half a First Amendment and no such thing as prohibiting “some” corporate censorship. In reality, these rules are what Senator Al Franken said they are:



The FCC’s action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.



Today was another historic sellout to big corporations by the Obama administration, not some kind of “win.” We need to set the record straight.



I’ve put together a page with three clear reasons why today’s rules are a sellout, allow corporate censorship, and end the Internet as we know it. I’ve also copied them below. Can you share this page with our friends so we can get the word out? . . .



If you’re on Twitter, please click to share this: NEWS: @FCC breaks Obama promise, allows corporate censorship – no Net Neutrality rules. 3 things to know: http://bit.ly/eVKyWH @WhiteHouse



If you’re on Facebook, click here to spread the word.



Here’s why today’s rules are nothing but a sop to big business:



1. Corporate censorship is allowed on your phone: The rules passed today by Obama FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski absurdly create different corporate censorship rules for wired and wireless Internet, allowing big corporations like Comcast to block websites they don’t like on your phone — a clear failure to fulfill Net Neutrality and put you, the consumer, in control of what you can and can’t do online.



2. Online tollbooths are allowed, destroying innovation: The rules passed today would allow big Internet Service Providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge for access to the “fast lane.” Big companies that could afford to pay these fees like Google or Amazon would get their websites delivered to consumers quickly, while independent newspapers, bloggers, innovators, and small businesses would see their sites languish in the slow lane, destroying a level playing field for competition online and clearly violating Net Neutrality.



3. The rules allow corporations to create “public” and “private” Internets, destroying the one Internet as we know it: For the first time, these rules would embrace a “public Internet” for regular people vs. a “private Internet” with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more — ending the Internet as we know it and creating tiers of free speech and innovation, accessible only if you have pockets deep enough to pay off the corporations.



The FCC could have reclassified Internet as a communications service — reversing a Bush-era mistake — regulated greedy corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T with enforceable rules, and protected free speech online. But they didn’t — instead, they allowed these corporations to write their own rules.



It’s imperative the FCC’s action today isn’t seen as a “win” for Net Neutrality — the Internet is still unprotected from corporate abuse and we still have to fight until we truly win. So help us spread the word.



If you’re on Twitter, please click to share this: NEWS: @FCC breaks Obama promise, allows corporate censorship – no Net Neutrality rules. 3 things to know: http://bit.ly/eVKyWH @WhiteHouse



If you’re on Facebook, click here to spread the word.

Source

 

[supraman]

Absolutely unbelievable... this CANNOT happen.







Source

That's it, I can take a lot but now they are fucking with my porn. I was we kill all the politicians and let Kerfuffle run the place

 

[TSD]

This makes me want to punch someone.



But I need to read more about this before getting all bent out of shape.



I am hearing mixed signals and mixed details on this on the internets.







Led by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the Democrats on the panel voted Tuesday to approve the first enforceable Net neutrality rules, which will prohibit Internet service providers such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking access to lawful content and websites.



http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1210/46677.html



this article says the FCC will prevent service providers from blocking what we can view. What it doesn't say is does this mean the FCC can control what we do meaning, like you cant curse on FM radio, will they move to block "inappropriate" content. I dont want them to have that power.



essentially the article Ton posted and this one say two completely different things. I am all for preventing service providers limiting what we can see, i am not for allowing them to censor shit. So until I see this Bill myself I don't know what to think.



But yeah Ton, Ive looked at about 10 other articles and what the article you posted said will happen from this enactment, the other articles say this is meant to stop that.

 

[TSD]

Ok lets re-iterate. Ton the Article you posted was just badly written.

When I was reading these "rules" he posted I was like thinking thats funny because thats what net neutrality is supposed to stop.



The Net Neutrality act passed, basically just granted the FCC the power to prevent providers from blocking lawful content from users. What it didnt do was actually impose a set of legal rules on the corporations(specifically making it against the law for them to block lawful content, create tollbooths etc), thats why the writer was pissed because he felt the act didnt do enough. so unless this act grants the FCC power to censor (which is why I want to read it), our current internet experience should not be affected in a negative manner.

 

[supraman]

Still sucks they might block my torrent sites and how am I going to get free high quality porn

 

[puckjim]

Still sucks they might block my torrent sites and how am I going to get free high quality porn

The new regulations say the exact opposite. Legal content CANNOT be blocked.



The original post is a biased bunch of claptrap.

 

[supraman]

The new regulations say the exact opposite. Legal content CANNOT be blocked.



The original post is a biased bunch of claptrap.

The places I get them are illegal

 

[winos5]

This is going to go to the courts, bank on it. Previous attempts at this have drowned in lawsuits. It may ultimately go to the Supreme Court.

 

[TSD]

This is going to go to the courts, bank on it. Previous attempts at this have drowned in lawsuits. It may ultimately go to the Supreme Court.

I like the idea of net neutrality, the problem is I question the specifics. i.e. if the FCC is granted the power to prevent ISP's from blocking legal webcontent, what other powers are they granted?

 

[jaxhawksfan]

The FCC could have reclassified Internet as a communications service — reversing a Bush-era mistake — regulated greedy corporations like Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T with enforceable rules, and protected free speech online. But they didn’t — instead, they allowed these corporations to write their own rules

This sentence bothers me. (No, not the mention of Bush). IF the FCC (a corrupt organization to begin with) classifies internet as a communications service then they can regulate it just like all other communications services like telephone.

Secondly, hating "greedy corporations" is en vogue nowadays, but let me pose this question to you: Take away Comcast, Verizon, at&t and all those other "greedy" corporations who provide internet services and who the **** are you going to get internet from? The bum down the street who gives it away for free?

Lastly, the corporations are far from writing their own rules. The FCC is there to make the rules and enforce them corruptly just as they have always done.

 

[TSD]

This sentence bothers me. (No, not the mention of Bush). IF the FCC (a corrupt organization to begin with) classifies internet as a communications service then they can regulate it just like all other communications services like telephone.

Secondly, hating "greedy corporations" is en vogue nowadays, but let me pose this question to you: Take away Comcast, Verizon, at&t and all those other "greedy" corporations who provide internet services and who the **** are you going to get internet from? The bum down the street who gives it away for free?

Lastly, the corporations are far from writing their own rules. The FCC is there to make the rules and enforce them corruptly just as they have always done.

I completely agree with you on the FCC being granted more power being worrisome. They should have made laws preventing Service providers from blocking legal content and otherwise sabotaging in some manner consumers experiences with websites the provider may not agree with or is competing with and left it at that, they shouldnt have given the FCC any domain over the internet.





We have no choice but to access the internet through paid service providers jax, our internet use shouldnt be tampered with by our service provider, what if for some reason comcast had a beef with IHN, as of this minute there is nothing stopping them from blocking it from comcast subscribing consumers or killing the badwidth users can use to access it. Thats what net neutrality is "supposed" to do, stop ISP's from fucking with our internet experience, it has nothing whatsoever to do with corporations being greedy. The problem is the government is doing it wrong.

 

[MassHavoc]

I was not expecting that first article when it was announced that net neutrality passed. That was not at all what I was understanding. Thanks for clearing some of this up, but I'm still really confused by what was passed. I've read that Net Neutrality was passed but in a vague weak format that leads to many loopholes. Many activists are upset that they settled and essentially passed net neutrality, but it means nothing because it's not strong enough.



My thinking is that now that something is finally passed, it may be easier to strengthen the bill now? Or maybe weaken it, I don't know. What do you think?

 

[TSD]

I was not expecting that first article when it was announced that net neutrality passed. That was not at all what I was understanding. Thanks for clearing some of this up, but I'm still really confused by what was passed. I've read that Net Neutrality was passed but in a vague weak format that leads to many loopholes. Many activists are upset that they settled and essentially passed net neutrality, but it means nothing because it's not strong enough.



My thinking is that now that something is finally passed, it may be easier to strengthen the bill now? Or maybe weaken it, I don't know. What do you think?

Its going to get bogged down in court I am willing to bet. I want to see the act itself, before I render any sort of opinion on what was done.

 

[jaxhawksfan]

We have no choice but to access the internet through paid service providers jax, our internet use shouldnt be tampered with by our service provider, what if for some reason comcast had a beef with IHN, as of this minute there is nothing stopping them from blocking it from comcast subscribing consumers or killing the badwidth users can use to access it. Thats what net neutrality is "supposed" to do, stop ISP's from fucking with our internet experience, it has nothing whatsoever to do with corporations being greedy. The problem is the government is doing it wrong.

Exactly my point. We already have "net neutrality" and it should be protected. With that said, the government has no right to regulate it, or put its tentacles into it. ISP's already have the power to limit what you do on the internet (in that "terms of service agreement" that nobody reads) and they haven't gone and done anything evil YET. Is there room for abuse, sure. Is it widespread? No. Even when you have "unlimited" internet access the companies still limit your bandwidth and how many gigs of information you are allowed to view each month. You probably already know this, but many may not: they monitor your usage on a weekly/monthly basis and if you go over your "limit" they either reduce your bandwidth or send you a nice letter telling you that you are not in compliance with the terms of service. In other words: some of you think you may be getting away with illegal activities on the net, but they are watching, believe me. My modem in Charlotte was put into quarantine because my roommate downloaded an episode of Supernatural.

 

[TSD]

Exactly my point. We already have "net neutrality" and it should be protected. With that said, the government has no right to regulate it, or put its tentacles into it. ISP's already have the power to limit what you do on the internet (in that "terms of service agreement" that nobody reads) and they haven't gone and done anything evil YET. Is there room for abuse, sure. Is it widespread? No. Even when you have "unlimited" internet access the companies still limit your bandwidth and how many gigs of information you are allowed to view each month. You probably already know this, but many may not: they monitor your usage on a weekly/monthly basis and if you go over your "limit" they either reduce your bandwidth or send you a nice letter telling you that you are not in compliance with the terms of service. In other words: some of you think you may be getting away with illegal activities on the net, but they are watching, believe me. My modem in Charlotte was put into quarantine because my roommate downloaded an episode of Supernatural.

Thats why you go through proxies when doing illegal activities

. and we don't already "legally" have net neutrality. Granted most ISP's wont do something as blatant as say comcast blocking dish network's website or something like that. comcast has already started interfering with file sharing services



Comcast Corp. actively interferes with attempts by some of its

high-speed Internet subscribers to share files online, a move that runs

counter to the tradition of treating all types of Net traffic equally.



Sure I understand their point they want to buckle down on illegal file sharing. The thing is they aren't discerning from legal and illegal file sharing. I don't even understand why they are doing that, Providers are liable for what users are doing, and they still aren't completely "blocking them". The sophisticated approach they are taking with this could be costing millions when they could be using that money to provide the consumer with a better experience.



Secondly, Both AT&T inc. and Comcast have proposed plans to charge webservice's more money in exchange for "preferrential" treatment. i.e. facebook can pay comcast so facebook members that are comcast subscribers have a better experience than say, myspace if myspace didn't pay comcast for comcast subscribers using the service.



Plans to do this by both providers are currently postponed, but postponed is not the same as scrapped. They are probably waiting for some sort of finality out of the net neutrality issue to move forward.



As it stands there is nothing in place stopping Providers from doing this and they have expressed interest in doing so, the whole concept of the net neutrality movement didn't even come up until AT&T proposed this in 2005.

 

[supraman]

Ya know what I'm just going to say it this way. The way the internet works today is just fine, dont change shit. It isnt broken

 

[MassHavoc]

It's shitty that they are in control of the gateway to something that essentially we invented and paid for with our tax dollars. The internet is ours. And yet we pay to access it. If they are going to pull this shit, then they should make all contracts for ISP service illegal. You should not be forced to sign a contract for service that can be altered or changed at anytime depend on the companies will toward a certain service. If I signed onto comcast for a year to get a particular rate, and they the **** me two months in and take away netflix or restrict the bandwidth to it, well then I need to have the option to go to someone else who provides me with the service I'm willing to pay for.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

I see a tax added onto our monthly internet bill coming sometime soon.

 

[E Runs]

Let's get down to brass tacks, how does this change my ability to dowmnload Girls Gone Wild from Limewire and the like?

 

[MassHavoc]

Let's get down to braas tacks, how does this change my ability to dowmnload Girls Gone Wild from Limewire and the like?

It will take much longer if at all.