President Barack Hussein Obama, a progressive socialist democrat, has told so many lies that it is almost impossible to catalog them all …
Two of his greatest lies are well-documented on videotape.
- “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, PERIOD!”
- “I am in this race to tell the corporate lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more than any other candidate in this race to take on lobbyists—and won. They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people when I am president.”
So why should anyone be surprised when they find that Thomas Wheeler, a major communications industry insider, is appointed to become the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission?
Thomas Wheeler
Tom Wheeler was sworn in as the 31st Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission on November 4, 2013. Chairman Wheeler was appointed by President Barack Obama and unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate.
For over three decades, Chairman Wheeler has been involved with new telecommunications networks and services, experiencing the revolution in telecommunications as a policy expert, an advocate, and a businessman. As an entrepreneur, he started or helped start multiple companies offering innovative cable, wireless, and video communications services. He is the only person to be selected to both the Cable Television Hall of Fame and The Wireless Hall of Fame, a fact President Obama joked made him “The Bo Jackson of Telecom.”
Prior to joining the FCC, Chairman Wheeler was Managing Director at Core Capital Partners, a venture capital firm investing in early stage Internet Protocol (IP)-based companies. He served as President and CEO of Shiloh Group, LLC, a strategy development and private investment company specializing in telecommunications services and co-founded SmartBrief, the internet’s largest electronic information service for vertical markets. From 1976 to 1984, Chairman Wheeler was associated with the National Cable Television Association (NCTA), where he was President and CEO from 1979 to 1984. Following NCTA, Chairman Wheeler was CEO of several high tech companies, including the first company to offer high speed delivery of data to home computers and the first digital video satellite service. From 1992 to 2004, Chairman Wheeler served as President and CEO of the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA). <Source:FCC>
Not only is Wheeler a wealthy insider/lobbyist/entrepreneur, he also apparently has no problem lying like his boss, Barack Obama …
FEBRUARY 19, 2014 -- STATEMENT BY FCC CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER ON THE FCC’S OPEN INTERNET RULES
In its Verizon v. FCC decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit invited the Commission to act to preserve a free and open Internet. I intend to accept that invitation by proposing rules that will meet the court’s test for preventing improper blocking of and discrimination among Internet traffic, ensuring genuine transparency in how Internet Service Providers manage traffic, and enhancing competition. Preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this agency.
The D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC has the legal authority to issue enforceable rules of the road to preserve Internet freedom and openness. It affirmed that Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 gives the FCC authority to encourage broadband deployment by, among other things, removing barriers to infrastructure deployment, encouraging innovation, and promoting competition. The court recognized the importance of ensuring that so-called “edge providers,” those that use the network to deliver goods and services, can reach people who use the Internet. And it upheld the Commission's judgment that Internet freedom encourages broadband investment and that its absence could ultimately inhibit broadband deployment. <Source: FCC>
The progressive socialist democrats: lying liars that lie --- disadvantaging consumers who purchase internet services …
Network neutrality is the concept that all files consist of the same type of digital bits, no matter if the file is text, audio, video, data, or anything else to be transmitted digitally. And, that since all of these files are comprised of the same digital bits, they should not be surcharged by content type, nor see any delay in transmission. So while the internet service providers can charge you for additional bandwidth and/or upload./download speeds, they cannot charge you for faster delivery of your digital content at the expense of delaying other digital content.
But, that is not the type of network neutrality envisioned by the industry trying to turn a commodity, the transmission of bits over their network, into a profit-making scheme as complex and convoluted as that used by the telephone and cellular carriers who have different tiers, packages, and schemes – even though they transmit the very same type of information.
So Wheeler’s proposed rules look something like …
The proposed rules would allow pay-for-priority access fees
By contrast, according to the Wall Street Journal, the FCC's new "proposal would […] allow providers to give preferential treatment to traffic from some content providers, as long as such arrangements are available on 'commercially reasonable' terms for all interested content companies. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by the FCC on a case-by-case basis."
This is a clear reversal of the Open Internet Order's policies towards access fees, as Public Knowledge haspointed out, p. 21.
"[T]he issue is not that broadband ISPs are charging commercially unreasonable rates to edge providers when they should be charging them commercially reasonable ones; the issue is that any charges or differential treatment between a broadband ISP and a pure edge provider (as opposed to an interconnecting network) are unreasonable. A 'commercial reasonableness' rule would change this norm by giving formal FCC blessing to the very kinds of arrangements the open internet rules sought to prohibit."
2. Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act requires the FCC to allow access fees
Many were surprised by yesterday's announcement. After all, in a statement in February, the Chairman had said that he is committed to protecting the Open Internet and that he intends to do so under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act, and many observers had taken comfort in that statement.
First, to be upheld under Section 706, any new network neutrality rules need to provide sufficient room for individualized discrimination and negotiation. After all, Verizon v. FCC struck down the Open Internet Order's no-blocking and non-discrimination rule because they violated the Communications Act's ban on imposing common carrier obligations on entities like Internet service providers that the FCC has not classified as telecommunications service providers or common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act.
<Source: The FCC changed course on network neutrality. Here is why you should care. | Center for Internet and Society>
Since there is no notice of advanced proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register, we turn to Tom Wheeler’s blog for a preview …
Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules by: Tom Wheeler, FCC Chairman - April 24, 2014
To be clear, this is what the Notice will propose:
- That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
- That no legal content may be blocked; and
- That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.
<Source: Official FCC Blog>
- Consider item one … all of the rates, fees, and schemes of the complex telephone tariff and taxation rules are open source documents that can be read by anyone with the time, patience, and knowledge of what they are looking at. So transparent disclosure has the same weight an advantage that Obama claimed when he said, ““This is the most transparent administration in history.”
- Consider item two … No “legal” content may be blocked. The United Nations and other international bodies are now considering the criminalization of so-called “hate speech” that disparages Muslims and other such groups. Should an international tribunal rule that speech which is protected under the Constitution’s First Amendment is illegal, there is a possibility that Obama – the internationalist – would follow suit and claim it is a treaty obligation; possibly ratified by a corrupt Senate under the leadership of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This is SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) which makes the government the agent to criminalize, investigate and prosecute previous civil copyright infringement again! Something that demands deep packet mining and demanding that packets not be encrypted beyond what the government could crack.
Detecting and then Criminalizing “Hate Speech”
If two Democratic lawmakers have their way, Barack Obama’s Justice Department will submit a report for action against any Internet sites, broadcast, cable television or radio shows determined to be advocating or encouraging “violent acts.”
The Hate Crime Reporting Act of 2014 “would create an updated comprehensive report examining the role of the Internet and other telecommunications in encouraging hate crimes based on gender, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation and create recommendations to address such crimes <Source: www.wnd.com/2014/04/big-chill-feds-want-to-scour-net-media-for-hate-speech/>
- Consider item three … Pretty much this excludes self-dealing, but says absolutely nothing about an ISP surcharging a video based upon its rental cost or on any other so-called “reasonable” basis. In the world of FCC-speak, reasonableness is often determined by having the same terms and conditions apply to all parties – the consumers be damned. Allowing the “reasonableness” to be determined by the FCC on a case-by-case basis, would open the process up to corrupt lobbying – with no party speaking for the citizen/taxpayer/consumer.
The end game …
Chairman Wheeler is claiming that he has no choice but to allow these access fees if the internet service providers are not regulated common carriers.
Of course, if internet service providers became common carriers, the the Executive Branch of the federal government could exert even more control over both the transmission and possibly the content. Allowing for the surcharging of content that may be deemed detrimental to society, such as pornography. And, possibly even butting heads with the First Amendment with respect to political advertising and support statements carried within a period of time preceding an election. I you say it cannot happen, one must consider exactly how lawless President Obama and his cadre of progressive socialist democrats are and how they have circumvented Congress to impose unconstitutional rules and regulation by executive fiat.
Bottom line …
There is no doubt that Tom Wheeler is representing the interests of industry rather than the consumer; and that he will return to the industry as soon as he passes through the revolving door. Personally, I am tired of the game being played by providers, especially paying for internet speeds that are not achievable on a sustained and consistent basis.
So, in essence, the FCC is offering you a false and misleading choice – both of which are damaging to the citizen/taxpayer/consumer. Choose one: network neutrality and increased government tyranny or no network neutrality and increased internet costs. I am sure that the Obamacons are hoping that you will select network neutrality and empower the government to, once again, screw citizens, taxpayers, and consumers.
We must vote the progressive socialist democrats out of office – especially in the House and the Senate. We need to make the Senate bulletproof to Obama’s progressive socialist agenda and to restore the balance of power between the Legislative and Executive Branch of government. And, at some point, rein-in the activist judges who are setting policy with their decisions rather than simply determining if a law is constitutional or the courts have overstepped their authority.
-- steve
No comments:
Post a Comment