Obama Net: All Your Base Are Belong To Us

Today I read the following excerpt from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and I started to feel sick. It was a warning to the government about the new Net Neutrality laws. What I read sounded like a surrender, and begging that the government does not go beyond their commitment to faster and safer internet. This is what was posted today and I quote:

For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.

Two weeks ago, we learned that we had likely managed the first goal — the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules. But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called ‘general conduct rule.’

According to the FCC’s own “Fact Sheet,” the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:

[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A ‘general conduct rule,’ applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice ‘harms’ consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of ‘harm’ (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .

Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a ‘general conduct rule’ it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

There are several problems with this approach. First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

As I mull over the paranoia of the EFF and their fear that the quite possibly the whole Net Neutrality plan was a lie. There is a part of me that can safely say that we told you so!

Whenever a government pushes for some strange law out of the blue they most certainly hope that you are ignorant on the subject so they can mold you into becoming a believer in their agenda.

I don’t know what your cynical aptitude is but when you hear the government or President say that they have an idea that they want to push into law and then they say the law will improve something, you should always err on the side of caution and not give them what they want.

History is changed by those social engineers who work with governments to coerce you through party loyalty, peer pressure, and the illusion that whatever they propose will be beneficial to you and will somehow help the little guy or underdog.

You assuming that you are an underdog or a person that is too busy to take the time to be informed are apt pupils for their nefarious activities.

Those with power and money have at their disposal all kinds of bottomless pockets that can program you into complying with their desires.

Unfortunately people have learned that it is best to play stupid and criticize those who try to be inquisitive. “Stupid is as stupid does.” “Life is a box of chocolates.” If you take a bite out of a couple you can eliminate the caramels form the nuts. That’s the way they want it and most Americans are obliged to follow through and grant it.

The federal government is about to seize control of the Internet and most Americans don’t even know about it and they are using partisan politics to shill out lie after lie to confuse the public and create a sense of insecurity and lack of confidence about the net, when policies in place for 18 years have kept the internet a valuable tool for commerce and information.

Released in July 1997, the internet Framework for Global Electronic Commerce was drafted by President Clinton’s chief policy adviser Ira Magaziner. The choice of Magaziner to lead the initiative was originally greeted with suspicion by some in the Internet policy community since he had previously spearheaded the Administration’s controversial health care reform effort, which prescribed a heavy dose of government intervention.

Luckily, as it turned out, at least when it came to internet policy, Magaziner had far more in common with Adam Smith than Karl Marx. The administration’s Framework for net governance was rooted in five liberty-enhancing principles for net governance that still resonate today. In fact it can be said that this was an unofficial constitution or at least a basic framework for Internet law and its purpose

However Barack Obama is now saying that the Framework is no longer applicable and feels that it is time to make the internet a public utility. This is what he means by Net Neutrality. It is similar to his lack of respect for the Constitution.

Allowing the government to run the internet like a utility opens the door to abuse.

The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce always stated that the private sector should be the self-governing force for the internet.

The Framework explicitly states that “governments should avoid undue restrictions on electronic commerce” and “parties should be able to enter into legitimate agreements to buy and sell products and services across the Internet with minimal government involvement or intervention.” It would be hard to articulate a more pro-capitalist recommendation than that but, better yet, the Framework continued on to note that “governments should refrain from imposing new and unnecessary regulations, bureaucratic procedures or new taxes and tariffs on commercial activities that take place via the internet.”

“Where governmental involvement is needed,” the Framework continued, “its aim should be to support and enforce a predictable, minimalist, consistent and simple legal environment for commerce.” This is where the Framework ventured into somewhat more controversial territory by trying to deal with intellectual property, privacy, and security issues. These remain hotly-contested issues today but the Framework offered a generally constructive, “light-touch” approach to dealing with those matters.

Remember it was this “hands off the ‘net” approach unleashed the internet’s staggering innovation. That bipartisan approach made possible the $1.3 trillion dollars of private investment that built today’s broadband networks.

Now Obama wants his hands all over the internet and he is using net neutrality as a cover for imposing old laws and restrictions on how you operate the net. Obama wants to hand the internet over to the FCC for control.

In January of 2012 we started seeing some aggressive activity from government regarding internet policy and control. The bipartisan cry was “Why fix what isn’t broken” and suddenly we began to see what appeared to be a manufactured rebellion against all attempts at controlling the commerce, communication, and fundamental use of the internet.

When the people who used the internet demanded that the self regulated printing press remain without government control this is what was called “net neutrality.” Many seem to think that the concept is something new when the internet has already put into practice or regulating itself without government oversight.

Richard Clarke the former counter terrorism Czar told Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig that there would be in the foreseeable future what he called an “I-911” or internet 911 where a major attack would take place online. This event would force Government officials to incorporate an internet “Patriot Act” limiting freedom of speech and freedom of movement online.

It was so predictable that in the midst of all of the struggles for control by the Obama administration, there would be attempts at rebelling against the laws and attempted takeovers.

Obama most certainly was plotting on how they could control the internet.

Over the last few months, things have been looking good for keeping the Internet open to everyone. A little too good, as far as Congress is concerned, which is why members and the corporate lobbyists who write them hefty checks have launched a last-ditch legislative effort to scuttle net neutrality.

Both President Obama and Federal Communications Commission Chair Tom Wheeler have stopped tiptoeing around net neutrality and seem to finally embrace the idea of using Title II of the Telecommunications Act to reclassify Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and regulate them as common carriers, like the phone companies and other public utilities.

While many people advocate the government’s hands on approach to the internet there are others that fear the government’s new concerns now have a more sinister outcome and people’s ignorance is being exploited with this issue.

Net neutrality is a government takeover of the internet and a threat to online freedom.

The way net neutrality is defined now is nothing more than doublespeak to cover up the fact that we already have it and we do not need the government regulating our free internet.

The reason why the government wants control of the net is so they can fight their silly wars and continue on the path of corruption, without the internet creating problems with independent journalists revealing their dishonesty.

The greatest casualty of war is truth and the more the y have control of the zeitgeist the more power they have of taking advantage of people’s ignorance.

The escalating fight over the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules is sprouting a classic feature of Washington political battles bombastic rhetoric designed to stir up partisan passions.

The first time I coined the phrase “Obama Net,” I was called a right-wing extremist in the blogosphere and that the word was given to me to start a right wing crusade against the Obama administration and their relentless attempts at destroying the internet.

The government from day one has hated the internet, and even though the internet was responsible for electing Barack Obama it is also the same internet that has exposed him as a giant fraud.

This is why the net is now in the cross hairs, Obama wants to blow it up and reboot it in his own image so he can say that he gave America a safer, and more equal internet.

This is nonsense.

His proposals will more than likely make it more difficult to publish online and will most certainly damage our right to freedom of speech and the independent press.

Protect Internet Freedom, a new but obscure group rallying opposition to the FCC plan, sent an email to supporters signed by Republican Sen. Ben Sasse with a subject line comparing the proposal to putting Russian President Vladimir Putin and President Barack Obama in charge of the internet.

That message taps into a recurring Republican argument that giving the federal government any new authority to regulate Internet service will make it hard for the U.S. to denounce countries like Russia and China that it accuses of online censorship and curbs on freedom of speech.

But the FCC’s plan would hardly put Obama in charge of the Internet, much less Putin. It would tighten FCC regulations, not hand control to the White House or the Kremlin.

This type of disinformation also harms the cause and once again makes me scream: “If it isn’t broke, then why fix it?

People are far too trusting in their politicians once again and they are more than happy to lie to the public rather than give them the truth.

Some advocates are pushing for “Title II.” That’s code for 1930s-style utility regulation. Title II would put the FCC squarely in the middle of the Internet — right beside the NSA. It saddles the Internet with price controls and other heavy-handed rules from a thankfully long-gone era. The debate over Title II isn’t a debate over net neutrality, which is why many net neutrality proponents actually oppose Title II. Instead, it’s a debate between a vocal minority that wants greater government control over broadband companies, and defenders of a bipartisan consensus around a “hands off the internet” approach.

Title II would crush broadband investment, and it won’t even ban the practices, like fast lanes, that its advocates worry about. It would hurt start-ups by saddling them with excessive regulation, and it would protect big broadband companies from new competitors, leaving consumers with even fewer choices. Title II would also hurt the under-served by slowing deployment in minority and rural communities. And it would vastly increase the FCC’s powers over the internet.

We already see how the FCC controls content on television and radio. Do we want restrictions online? Also, treating the internet like a utility is basically saying that the internet is like water, sewer, and electricity.

While water and electricity are necessities, the internet really isn’t. Now for many people it is a necessity for business, work and social events. The utility companies have standardized water and electricity as basic products with very little more that what you are paying for.

They can charge a lot for their standardized utilities and they run the risk of being monopolies — being a monopoly gives them the ability to be less innovative and regulation protects them from competition. Broadband providers are constantly pushing the boundaries of technology to keep pace with exploding demand. If you regulate broadband like you regulate water, competition will evaporate and with it, the incentive to keep upgrading networks.

Applying FCC controls with the Title II provisions to IP networks creates a new Federal Computer Commission with authority to weigh in on everything connected to an IP network.

This means everything.

The truth is that net neutrality is not whether a firm non-discrimination rule for ISPs is, or is not, a good idea it is most certainly an idea that has now arrived and must be acknowledged.

The hard question about net neutrality is the institutional one: if we think non-discrimination by ISPs is a good idea, how do we get them to be non-discriminatory? Is the FCC well-positioned to help us reach the non-discriminatory goal without doing too much damage to the internet and the neutrality that has been around since the Clinton administration?

The proponents of Obama Net meddling appear to have the majority clamoring for what they call “light regulation” from the FCC and not allow overregulation to strangle and destroy the free movement of ideas and commerce online.

They are expecting and encouraging the government to regulate without an iron hand.

But this brings up another question since when does the government ever have any “light” regulations or doesn’t take a little power and then take more until we do see overregulation.

Using the words “expecting” and “encourage” in their support is so damn naïve I can’t understand how people can be this ignorant.

There will nothing like the FCC continually looking over the ISPs’ shoulders, into the indefinite future and also checking various sites for content they can order an ISP to block or even the social networks which have also fallen for the idea that censorship and kill switches are an effective way to silence rebellion or even contrasting points of view that keep the empire honest.

Tonight, 2/25/15, Clyde talks to Michael Daugherty,The Devil Inside the Beltway: The Shocking Expose of the US Government’s Surveillance and Overreach Into Cyber-security, Medicine and Small Business, about the impending Net Neutrality vote in Congress.

Text – Check out Ground Zero Radio with Clyde Lewis Live Nightly @ http://www.groundzeromedia.org