FCC to pass first regs to put Internet under government control

Glenn Beck | 10/19/09

[pabianice]

According to Beck, this Thursday, October 22, Obama's FCC will pass the first set of new regs taking control of the internet. Alleged reason is "to protect consumers from false or misleading information." The FCC will not allow any public comment or input. Obama has given them their orders. Obama also to give bail-out to the "progressive" newspapers which are all going bankrupt. Again, "to make sure consumers get the real news." Spokesman for internet watch dog group said that there is nothing to stop Obama in his drive to control all media and thus silence all criticism and opposition.

[4Speed]

Any shutdown of the Internet should be answered with a Pre-determined meeting place and Date to convene a free Speech Protest.
PLACE: DC steps of the capitol -or- multiple local sites town squares, with weekly meeting times
Date time: to be determined / and repeated often
We shall have free speech.

[sonofagun]

The FCC has no control over cable or satellite TV and radio, so therefore should have no control over those means of internet, and that is how much of it works any more.

It's all telecommunications. Their jurisdiction is all civilian broadcast communication frequencies.

I believe if you follow a paper trail of dollars from any server within the US, you'll eventually come across a license from the FCC that was leased by some broadcast provider.

Anybody, please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Logical me]

This communists turd is really on the move now. Goodbye America.

[goodnesswins]

Did you see this comment after that article?

"This latest move means that political control and influence over the web has shifted further from the US to broader based international consensus, and this is good as it means it is less likely special interests will be able to control or corrupt the web."

[EBH]

Problem is ...the left-wing nuts project their intentions.

What they claim they fear the most, is in reality what they themselves have planned to enact.

[perchprism]

I think you mean ‘Edict’.

[Gabz]

Their jurisdiction is all civilian broadcast communication frequencies.

That is news to me. Unless some law was enacted that I missed I believe their jurisdiction is limited to public frequencies, which is why cable, and now satellite, have not been covered by the FCC.

[combat_boots]

Nope. Didn’t see it. Tnx.

[Excellence]

I’m online at the local community college and this us the only article I can’t access. I’m on my Blackberry to write this.

[tophat9000]

The FCC has no control over cable or satellite TV and radio,

The FCC regulates and over the air radio frequencies so satellite TV and radio are under the FCC

As for cable the cable companys interconnect to the Internet via the same telecommunication infrastructure the FCC regulates

Also the cable company's and telco (for dsl) as "last mile" provider are granted a government monopoly to provide you service ...

You do not "pick" your phone or cable company, they are utility just like water, gas and electric services

The local government picks the company they will allow to have the easement access to your property to lay the lines to provide you service

[Gabz]

On the technical side I will bow to your knowledge, as I do not know. However, content is entirely different. The FCC does not regulate the content of cable and satellite in the manner in which they do so for broadcast radio and TV.

[sonofagun]

On the technical side I will bow to your knowledge, as I do not know. However, content is entirely different. The FCC does not regulate the content of cable and satellite in the manner in which they do so for broadcast radio and TV.

Not yet, anyway.

Isn't that what started this thread?

[sonofagun]

I threatened to throw one in prison for mandating illegal laws, and it was funny to see his face melt in shock and watch him slither away.

Cool!

Are you a judge?

[domeika]

How will they do it?

Anybody notice that iCann is not under the control of the Dept of Commerce as of very very recently?

A little background, iCANN's official name:
AmeriCANN - correct description of International Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. Their website.


And in this opinion piece (quoted below, but I removed some text for brevity) by an industry insider, that whether you agree with the opinions or not is irrelevant, the author lays out the history of the Internet, but also how the control for global communications goes back to the telegraph, and the international community of communications bodies that were eventually established starting in May 1865.

And who or what is that? The ITU:
"International Telecommunication Union, Est 1947, under agreement with United Nations, became an agency of United Nations, with responsibilities in international telephony, telegraphy, and radio communications." For another reference, read the wiki for ITU.

For about 40 years, telecommunications developed to the point of the Internet, which did not fall under international communications like linking up telephone networks. It was a US based conception, and the US commerce dept controlled it via AmeriCANN. The public sector and free market exploded into and onto this network creating the Internet technologies we enjoy today. The DNS servers that control the domain names, or root-servers, are located in the U.S., U.K, and Japan amongst others on a short list. Early on, when the net was still small and mostly in the hands of geeks, the UN's ITU responded by attempting to design their own global Internet, but could never get everyone to agree on enough things to get it out of the planning "paper" stage. The ITU did however contribute it's of version of communications protocol called the OSI model, which also failed (no one uses it, so that = fail).

In their plans for their own Internet, "ITU assumed a role of facilitating what was asserted to be a balanced international environment where the costs of running the international system were fairly apportioned between national service providers...

domeika: translated..."From each according to his means, to each according to his needs."

"...goals were not achieved, international facilities priced at levels that were considerably higher than associated costs of actual service provision. When attempts were made to redress the imbalances between large and small national carriers, the outcomes included collective action on the part of the national carriers that operated in ways not dissimilar to a cartel. The ITU was heavily criticized over the ponderous amount of time taken to generate telecommunications standards, the nature of the process used in developing these standards in a closed set of forums, the marginal relevance of these standards, and the final indignity, that the ITU charged for paper and electronic copies of these standards. As some critics pointed out, perhaps harshly, this was not just a case of paperware about vaporware, it was a case of very expensive paperware about vaporware."

And this was their attempt at their own "global" Internet. Nothing ever materialized. They couldn't find a way to make people use their overpriced and onerous Internet if people could use the U.S. based Internet instead. And as for their protocol, OSI..."ITU was seen as being simply out of touch with data networking. It was often portrayed that the ITU was coming from a mindset that was incapable of engaging with either the data communications industry or the broader consumer market for data services. From the perspective of data networking, the failure of OSI was seen as a failure of the ITU itself."

So the UN socialists, accepting the fact that they couldn't create an Internet anyone wanted to play in, decided that the next best thing would be to just take ours.

And, if AmeriCANN is now going to be run by the ITU, then I guess they just did, under the auspices of mm, mm, mm, Barack Hussein Obama.


And AmeriCANN's stance in all this? The current boss at AmeriCANN, Rod Beckstrom, CEO, states in this video that iCANN was created for the purpose of handing over the net. However, I couldn't find that part in AmeriCANNs Core Value section of their charter:

1. Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet.

2. Respecting the creativity, innovation, and flow of information made possible by the Internet by limiting ICANN's activities to those matters within ICANN's mission requiring or significantly benefiting from global coordination.

3. To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination functions to or recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that reflect the interests of affected parties.

4. Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making.

5. Where feasible and appropriate, depending on market mechanisms to promote and sustain a competitive environment.

6. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public interest.

7. Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii) ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development process.

8. Making decisions by applying documented policies neutrally and objectively, with integrity and fairness.

9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining informed input from those entities most affected.

10. Remaining accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN's effectiveness.

11. While remaining rooted in the private sector, recognizing that governments and public authorities are responsible for public policy and duly taking into account governments' or public authorities' recommendations.

That isn't stopping them though, and apparently, it seems to have been an idea promoted as such within the corporate culture of AmeriCANN. And, it's been in the works for a while, and, they knew keeping the details out of the news would be of their benefit. On Thursday 28 February 2008, there was a joint meeting between AmeriCANN and the DOC, where the AmeriCANN Ceo is quoted saying "Most commentators have focused on a bigger picture as well. We think that this is appropriate."

So, to put it simply, many corporations make "policy" that is not law, but their policy all the same. For example, smoking in your vehicle is not illegal. However, if you work for a company that adopts a policy that no smoking is permitted in vehicles on company property, you may not be breaking the law, but they'll try to fire you anyway for violating policy.
Now look at the fact that AmeriCann is a corporation, and they state that they will go by the recommendations of governments. That's "recommendations" mind you, not "laws".

So....What recommendations? By whom? Perhaps our own FCC? Filed right next to Kim Jong Il's recommendations?

And in a broader sense, if Obama cedes US sovereignty by signing on to the climate treaty, guess who or what will be making the recommendations then? The U.N.

So how could AmeriCann get steered in this direction? Look at their guidelines for nominating and selecting board members and it will become apparent. The ITU is listed as one source for candidates.

When th ITU is in control, we will watch the Internet as we know it wither and die.

And that, IMHO, is "how they'll do it".

[DBrow]

A pirate sat dish could n not connect to a bird without permission of its owner. Pirate sat is needed.

I think we should research dial-up bbs systems like there used to be. Most people would have only one dial-up line coming in, though, so only one remote could connect at a time.

There are the various “groups”, like google and yahoo, but without encryption they are wide open and can be shut down.

I’ve looked at ways to “control the internet” and it can be done, if your goal is to silence particular sites, nodes, and individuals.

E6046wUzHFMgG5HAaAfLKXUYeWEvVYVk8hBbG2/HsH/1uPUAs8urjIr79euxdcGC

[DBrow]

“The FCC has no control over cable or satellite TV and radio”

If they write a piece of paper saying that they do, then they do, until someone with authority tells them they don’t.

If the president tells them they do, then they do, and the AG, appointed by the president, will have to act, or the Supremes will have to sing, years later.

Since nobody seems to be in charge of the internet, someone declaring control, for the safety of children and the end of hate speech, will be welcome to many.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Thanks for catching that.

A reminder that when making a typo I should make it gibberish if I want spell check to catch it.

[Martin Tell]

Does anyone know what Beck is actually referring to? Is this "'Net Neutrality?" Some "Diversity" requirement? Or is the possible authority of an emergency takeover of the Internet I've heard about?Does anyone have links to any NPRM at the FCC site?

Don't get me wrong, Obama and his minions are a real threat to the Constitution. I do want to see what this specific threat actually is before I head to the barricades.

Without more info, this seems a bit like the "Internet tax" the FCC was supposedly plotting twelve years ago.

[Martin Tell]

The local government picks the company they will allow to have the easement access to your property to lay the lines to provide you service ...

Telecommunications, including rights to lay cable and access utility easements, has been open to competition for many years. Yes, CATV still can have a monopoly franchise in some states/localities, but there are no legal telecoms monopolies anymore. The reason we don't see many competing local infrastructure providers is pure economics.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Spokesman for internet watch dog group said that there is nothing to stop Obama in his drive to control all media and thus silence all criticism and opposition.

Then this "spokesman" needs to be replaced or his organization reorganized.