Category Archives: FCC

FCC open internet rules exposed by commissioner Ajit Pai and Small Business Administration, Obama told us to do so, Unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, Higher broadband prices, slower speeds, less broadband deployment, less innovation, fewer options for consumer

FCC open internet rules exposed by commissioner Ajit Pai and Small Business Administration, Obama told us to do so, Unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, Higher broadband prices, slower speeds, less broadband deployment, less innovation, fewer options for consumer

“If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.”…FCC commissioner Ajit Pia February 10, 2015

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

From FCC commissioner Ajit Pai February 26, 2015.

“ORAL DISSENTING STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

Re: Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, GN Docket No. 14-28.
Americans love the free and open Internet. We relish our freedom to speak, to post, to rally, to learn, to listen, to watch, and to connect online. The Internet has become a powerful force for freedom, both at home and abroad. So it is sad this morning to witness the FCC’s unprecedented attempt to replace
that freedom with government control.
It shouldn’t be this way. For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and open Internet. A Republican Congress and a Democratic President enshrined in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 the principle that the Internet should be a “vibrant and competitive free market . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.” And dating back to the Clinton Administration,
every FCC Chairman—Republican and Democrat—has let the Internet grow free from utility-style regulation. The results speak for themselves.
But today, the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers (ISPs) make their investments, and to determine what service plans will
be available to the American public. This is not only a radical departure from the bipartisan, marketoriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades. It is also an about-face from the proposals the FCC made just last May.
So why is the FCC turning its back on Internet freedom? Is it because we now have evidence that the Internet is broken? No. We are flip-flopping for one reason and one reason alone. President Obama
told us to do so.
On November 10, President Obama asked the FCC to implement his plan for regulating the Internet, one that favors government regulation over marketplace competition. As has been widely reported in the press, the FCC has been scrambling ever since to figure out a way to do just that.
The courts will ultimately decide this Order’s fate. Litigants are already lawyering up to seek judicial review of these new rules. Given the Order’s many glaring legal flaws, they will have plenty of fodder.
But if this Order manages to survive judicial review, these will be the consequences: higher broadband prices, slower speeds, less broadband deployment, less innovation, and fewer options for American consumers. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet
isn’t the solution to a problem. His plan is the problem.
In short, because this Order imposes intrusive government regulations that won’t work to solve a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority the FCC doesn’t have, I dissent.
I.
The Commission’s decision to adopt President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works. It’s an overreach that will let a Washington bureaucracy, and not the American
people, decide the future of the online world.
One facet of that control is rate regulation. For the first time, the FCC will regulate the rates that ISPs may charge and will set a price of zero for certain commercial agreements. And the Order goes out of its way to reject calls to forbear from section 201’s authorization of rate regulation and expressly
invites parties to file such complaints with the Commission. A government agency deciding whether a rate is lawful is the very definition of rate regulation.
2
Although the Order plainly regulates rates, the plan takes pains to claim that it is not imposing further “ex ante rate regulation.” Of course, that concedes that the new regulatory regime will involve ex post rate regulation. But even the agency’s suggestion that it today “cannot . . . envision” ex ante rate regulations “in this context” says nothing of what a future Commission—perhaps this very
Commission—could envision.
Just as pernicious is the FCC’s new “Internet conduct” standard, a standard that gives the FCC a roving mandate to review business models and upend pricing plans that benefit consumers. Usage-based pricing plans and sponsored data plans are the current targets. So if a company doesn’t want to offer an
expensive, unlimited data plan, it could find itself in the FCC’s cross hairs.
Our standard should be simple: If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you. Banning diverse service plans would just hurt consumers, especially the middle-class and low-income Americans who are the biggest beneficiaries of these plans.
In all, the FCC will have almost unfettered discretion to decide what business practices clear the bureaucratic bar, so these won’t be the last plans targeted by the agency. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote just this week: This open-ended rule will be “anything but clear” and “suggests that the
FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices.” And “a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.”
Then there is the temporary forbearance. Although the Order crows that its forbearance from some Title II rules yields a “‘light-touch’ regulatory framework,” in reality it isn’t light at all, coming as it does with the caveats that the public has come to expect from Washington, DC. In discussing additional
rate regulation, tariffs, last-mile unbundling, burdensome administrative filing requirements, accounting standards, and entry and exit regulation, the plan repeatedly states that it is only forbearing “at this time.”
For other rules, the FCC will refrain “for now.”
To be sure, with respect to some rules, the agency says that it “cannot envision” going further.
But as the history of this proceeding makes clear, assurances like these don’t tend to last very long. In other words, expect forbearance to fade and the regulations to ratchet up as time goes on.
A.
Consumers will be worse off under President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. Consumers should expect their bills to go up, and they should expect that broadband will be slower going forward.
This isn’t what anyone was promised, to say the least.
1. New broadband taxes.—One avenue for higher bills is the new taxes and fees that will be applied to broadband. Here’s the background. If you look at your phone bill, you’ll see a “Universal Service Fee,” or something like it. These fees—what most Americans would call taxes—are paid by Americans on their telephone service. They funnel about $9 billion each year through the FCC.
Consumers haven’t had to pay these taxes on their broadband bills because broadband has never before been a Title II service.
But now it is. And so the Order explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes.
Indeed, it repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes—not prohibiting them.
This is fig-leaf forbearance. Indeed, the FCC has already referred the question of assessing federal and state taxes on broadband to the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service and “has requested a recommended decision by April 7, 2015,” right before Tax Day. It’s no surprise that many view this referral as a question of how, not whether to tax broadband, and states have already begun
discussions on how they will spend the extra money.
3
And the agency’s preference is clear. The Order argues that taxing broadband “potentially could spread the base of contributions” and could add “to the stability of the universal service fund.” For those not familiar with this Beltway argot, let me translate: “Taxing broadband would make it easier to spend
more of your money with minimal public oversight.”
We’ve seen this game played before. During reform of the E-Rate program in July 2014, the FCC secretly told lobbyists that it would raise USF taxes after the election to pay for the promises it was making. Sure enough, in December 2014, the agency did just that—increasing E-Rate spending (and with it telephone taxes) by $1.5 billion per year.
Public reports indicate that the federal government is eager to tap this new revenue stream soon to spend more of consumers’ hard-earned dollars. So when it comes to broadband, read my lips: More new taxes are coming. It’s just a matter of when.
2. Slower broadband.—These Internet regulations will work another serious harm on consumers.
Their broadband speeds will be slower.
The record is replete with evidence that Title II regulations will slow investment and innovation in broadband networks. Remember: Broadband networks don’t have to be built. Capital doesn’t have to be invested here. Risks don’t have to be taken. The more difficult the FCC makes the business case for deployment, the less likely it is that broadband providers big and small will connect Americans with digital opportunities.
The Old World offers a cautionary tale here. Compare the broadband market in the United States to that in Europe, where broadband is generally regulated as a public utility. Today, 82% of Americans have access to 25 Mbps broadband speeds. In Europe, that figure is only 54%. Moreover, in the United States, average mobile broadband speeds are 30% faster than they are in Western Europe.
It’s no wonder that many Europeans are perplexed by what is taking place at the FCC. Just this week, the Secretary General of the European People’s Party, the largest party in the European Parliament, observed that the FCC, “at the behest” of President Obama, was about to impose the type of “[r]egulation
which . . . has led Europe to fall behind the US in levels of investment.”
Making it all worse is the fact that the FCC now welcomes litigation—from individual claims about the justness and reasonableness of ISP pricing to sprawling class actions for violations of the new Internet conduct rule—as an appropriate means of regulating the Internet economy. Judging from what
we’ve seen in the patent world, this will be a boon for trial lawyers.
And these are just the intended results of reclassification!
There are unintended consequences as well. The fees that broadband providers—from smalltown cable operators to new entrants like Google—must now pay to deploy broadband using things like utility poles will go up by an estimated $150–200 million per year. And reclassification will expose many small companies to higher state and local taxes. Here in Washington, for instance, companies will face an instant 11% increase in taxes on their gross receipts. That big bite will leave a welt on consumers’ wallets.
All of these new fees and costs add up. One estimate puts the total at $11 billion a year. And every dollar spent on fees and new costs like lawyers and accountants has to come from somewhere: either the pockets of the American consumer or projects to deploy faster broadband. And so these higher costs will lead to slower speeds and higher prices—in short, less value—for the American consumer.
B.
So do American consumers want slower speeds at higher prices? I don’t think so.
4
That’s certainly not what I heard when I hosted the Texas Forum on Internet Regulation in College Station, the FCC’s only field hearing on net neutrality where audience members were allowed to speak. There, Internet innovators, students, everyday people told me they wanted something else from
the FCC—something that I thought had a familiar ring to it. These consumers wanted competition, competition, competition.
And yet, literally nothing in this Order will promote competition among ISPs. To the contrary, reclassifying broadband will drive competitors out of business. Monopoly rules designed for the monopoly era will inevitably move us in the direction of a monopoly. President Obama’s plan to regulate
the Internet is nothing more than a Kingsbury Commitment for the digital age. If you liked the Ma Bell monopoly in the 20th century, you’ll love Pa Broadband in the 21st.
This isn’t just my view. The President’s own Small Business Administration—apparently acting independently—admonished the FCC that its proposed rules would unduly burden small businesses.
Following the President’s lead, the FCC ignores this admonition by applying heavy-handed Title II regulations to each and every small broadband provider as if it were an industrial giant.
Unsurprisingly, small Internet service providers are worried. I heard this for myself at the Texas Forum on Internet Regulation. One of the panelists, Joe Portman, runs Alamo Broadband, a wireless ISP, or WISP, that serves 700 people across 500 square miles south of San Antonio.
What does Joe think of Title II? He thinks it’s “pretty much a terrible idea.” His staff “is pretty busy just dealing with the loads we already carry. More staff to cover regulations means less funds to run the network and provide the very service our customers depend on.”
Other WISPs feel the same way. Just last week, 142 WISPs joined the chorus. These WISPs have deployed wireless broadband to customers who often have no alternatives. They often run on a shoestring budget with just a few people to run the business, install equipment, and handle service calls.
They have no incentive and no ability to take on commercial giants like Netflix. And they say the FCC’s new “regulatory intrusion into our businesses . . . would likely force us to raise prices, delay deployment expansion, or both.”
Or consider the views of 24 of the country’s smallest ISPs, each with fewer than 1,000 residential broadband customers. They wrote us that Title II “will badly strain our limited resources” because they “have no in-house attorneys and no budget line items for outside counsel.”
Or how about the 43 municipal broadband providers that flatly told the FCC that Title II “will trigger consequences beyond the Commission’s control and risk serious harm to our ability to fund and deploy broadband without bringing any concrete benefit for consumers or edge providers that the market is not already proving today without the aid of any additional regulation.”
There’s a special irony given that right before this vote, the FCC voted to preempt state laws regarding city-owned broadband projects. This is an initiative President Obama announced just last month in Cedar Falls, Iowa, and the FCC is dutifully implementing it. But Cedar Falls Utilities, the very municipal broadband provider the President promoted, tells us that Title II is a tremendous mistake.
So what does the Order tell Americans whose ISP isn’t a Comcast, an AT&T, a Google, or a Sprint? What does it tell those whose service will be more expensive as a direct result of reclassification?
What does it tell those who may lose their Internet service if their small operator goes out of business?
What does it tell those who worked for years to serve their community and build a business, one that’s finally in the black? There’s no explanation. There’s not even an acknowledgement. There’s just the smug assurance that it won’t be that bad.
5
C.
So the FCC is abandoning a 20-year-old, bipartisan framework for keeping the Internet free and open in favor of Great Depression-era legislation designed to regulate Ma Bell. But at least we’re getting something in return, right? Wrong. The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve.
That the Internet works—that Internet freedom works—should be obvious to anyone with an Apple iPhone or Microsoft Surface, a Samsung Smart TV or a Roku, a Nest Thermostat or a Fitbit. We live in a time where you can buy a movie from iTunes, watch a music video on YouTube, listen to a personalized playlist on Pandora, watch your favorite Philip K. Dick novel come to life on Amazon Streaming Video, help someone make potato salad on KickStarter, check out the latest comic at XKCD, see what Seinfeld’s been up to on Crackle, navigate bad traffic with Waze, and do literally hundreds of other things all with an online connection. At the start of the millennium, we didn’t have any of this
Internet innovation.
And no, the federal government didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.
For all intents and purposes, the Internet didn’t exist until the private sector took it over in the 1990s, and it’s been the commercial Internet that has led to the innovation, the creativity, the engineering genius that we see today.
Nevertheless, the Order ominously claims that “[t]hreats to Internet openness remain today.” It argues that broadband providers “hold all the tools necessary to deceive consumers, degrade content or disfavor the content that they don’t like,” and it asserts that the FCC continues “to hear concerns about other broadband provider practices involving blocking or degrading third-party applications.”
The evidence of these continuing threats? There is none; it’s all anecdote, hypothesis, and hysteria. A small ISP in North Carolina allegedly blocked VoIP calls a decade ago. Comcast capped BitTorrent traffic to ease upload congestion eight years ago. Apple introduced Facetime over Wi-Fi first, cellular networks later. Examples this picayune and stale aren’t enough to tell a coherent story about net neutrality. The bogeyman never had it so easy.
So what is there to fear? A sober reader might borrow from the father of Title II: “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” But the FCC instead intones the nine scariest words for any friend of Internet freedom: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”
To put it another way, Title II is not just a solution in search of a problem—it’s a government solution that creates a real-world problem. This is not what the Internet needs, and it’s not what the American people want.
D.
So—that’s substance. A few words on process. When the Commission launched this rulemaking, I said that we needed to “give the American people a full and fair opportunity to participate in this process.” Unfortunately, we have fallen woefully short of that standard.
Most importantly, the plan in front of us today was not forged in this building through a transparent notice-and-comment rulemaking process. Instead, The Wall Street Journal reports that it was developed through “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House.” Indeed, White House officials, according to the Journal, functioned as a “parallel version of the FCC.” Their work led to the President’s announcement in November of his plan for Internet regulation, a plan which “blindsided” the FCC and “swept aside . . . months of work by [Chairman] Wheeler toward a compromise.”
Of course, a few insiders were clued in about what was transpiring. Here’s what a leader for the government-funded group Fight for the Future had to say: “We’ve been hearing for weeks from our allies in DC that the only thing that could stop FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler from moving ahead with his sham
6
proposal to gut net neutrality was if we could get the President to step in. So we did everything in our power to make that happen. We took the gloves off and played hard, and now we get to celebrate a sweet victory.”
What the press has called the “parallel FCC” at the White House opened its doors to a plethora of special-interest activists: Daily Kos, Demand Progress, Fight for the Future, Free Press, and Public Knowledge, just to name a few. Indeed, even before activists were blocking Chairman Wheeler’s driveway late last year, some of them had met with executive branch officials. But what about the rest of
the American people? They certainly couldn’t get White House meetings. They were shut out of the process. They were being played for fools.
And the situation didn’t improve once the White House announced President Obama’s plan and “ask[ed]” the FCC to “implement” it. The document in front of us today differs dramatically from the proposal that the FCC put out for comment last May. It differs so dramatically that even zealous net
neutrality advocates frantically rushed in recent days to make last-minute filings registering their concerns that the FCC might be going too far. Yet the American people to this day have not been allowed to see President Obama’s plan. It has remained hidden.
Especially given the unique importance of the Internet, Commissioner O’Rielly and I asked for
the plan to be released to the public. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune and House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton did the same. And according to a survey last week by a respected Democratic polling firm, 79% of the American people favored making the
document public. But still the FCC has insisted on keeping it behind closed doors. We have to pass President Obama’s 317-page plan so that the American people can find out what is in it. This isn’t how the FCC should operate. We should be an independent agency making decisions in a transparent manner based on the law and the facts in the record. We shouldn’t be a rubber stamp for
political decisions made by the White House.
And we should have released this plan to the public, solicited their feedback, incorporated that input into the plan, and then proceeded to a vote. There was no need for us to resolve this matter today.
There is no immediate crisis in the Internet marketplace that demands immediate action.
The backers of the President’s plan know this. But they also know that the details of this plan cannot stand up to the light of day. They know that the more the American people learn about it, the less they will like it. That is why this plan was developed behind closed doors at the White House. And that is why the plan has remained hidden from public view.
II.
These are not my only concerns. Even a cursory look at the plan reveals glaring legal flaws that are sure to mire the agency in the muck of litigation for a long, long time. But rather than address them today, I will reserve them for my written statement.
* * *
At the beginning of this proceeding, I quoted Google’s former CEO, Eric Schmidt, who once said: “The Internet is the first thing that humanity has built that humanity doesn’t understand.” This proceeding makes abundantly clear that the FCC still doesn’t get it.
But the American people clearly do. The threat to Internet freedom has awakened a sleeping giant. And I am optimistic that we will look back on today’s vote as an aberration, a temporary deviation from the bipartisan path that has served us so well. I don’t know whether this plan will be vacated by a court, reversed by Congress, or overturned by a future Commission. But I do believe that its days are numbered.
For all of these reasons, I dissent.”

Click to access DOC-332260A5.pdf

 

Net neutrality lies exposed by Ajit Pai, FCC Feb 10, 2015 press conference, Obama plan to regulate internet, More Obama lies, Rate regulation, Like your plan keep your plan?, FCC broad and unprecedented power, New Taxes, Utility style regulation, Gift to trial lawyers

Net neutrality lies exposed by Ajit Pai, FCC Feb 10, 2015 press conference, Obama plan to regulate internet, More Obama lies, Rate regulation, Like your plan keep your plan?, FCC broad and unprecedented power, New Taxes, Utility style regulation, Gift to trial lawyers

“If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.”…FCC commissioner Ajit Pia February 10, 2015

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. His heart sank as he thought of the enormous power arrayed against him, the ease with which any Party intellectual would overthrow him in debate, the subtle arguments which he would not be able to understand, much less answer. And yet he was in the right! They were wrong and he was right. The obvious, the silly, and the true had got to be defended. Truisms are true, hold on to that! The solid world exists, its laws do not change. Stones are hard, water is wet, objects unsupported fall towards the earth’s centre. With the feeling that he was speaking to O’Brien, and also that he was setting forth an important axiom, he wrote:

Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”…George Orwell, “1984”

 

 

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai held a press conference on February 10, 2015.

Here is the transcript.

“February 10, 2015
Matthew Berry: (202) 418-2005
Email: Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov

PRESS STATEMENT OF FCC COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S PLAN TO REGULATE THE INTERNET

The American people are being misled about President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet.
Last week’s carefully stage-managed rollout was designed to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy and to shield many critical details from the public. Indeed, Chairman Wheeler has made it clear that he will not release the document to the public even though federal law authorizes him to
do so.
I believe the public has a right to know what its government is doing, particularly when it comes to something as important as Internet regulation. I have studied the 332-page plan in detail, and it is worse than I had imagined. So today, I want to correct the record and explain key aspects of what President Obama’s plan will actually do.

First

, the claim that President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet does not include rate regulation is flat-out false. The plan clearly states that the FCC can regulate the rates that Internet service providers charge for broadband Internet access, for interconnection, for transit—in short, for the
core aspects of Internet services. To be sure, the plan says that the FCC will not engage in what it calls ex ante rate regulation. But this only means that the FCC won’t set rates ahead of time. The plan repeatedly states that the FCC will apply sections 201 and 202 of the Communications Act, including their rate
regulation provisions, to determine whether the prices charged by broadband providers are “unjust or unreasonable.” The plan also repeatedly invites complaints about section 201 and 202 violations from end-users and edge providers alike. Thus, for the first time, the FCC would claim the power to declare broadband Internet rates and charges unreasonable after the fact. Indeed, the only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are “just and reasonable,” which isn’t
much of a restriction at all.
Lest anyone take comfort in the notion that the FCC will allow the market to set prices through competition, the plan goes out of its way to reiterate its view that competition is limited. And it uses the FCC’s new 25 Mbps yardstick for broadband to claim that competition doesn’t exist for a majority of
Americans. To think that rate regulation and other utility-style regulation will not happen in the face of such findings is naïve.

Second

, President Obama’s plan targets pro-competitive broadband service offerings, both actual and potential, that benefit consumers. The plan expressly states that usage-based pricing, data allowances—really, any offers other than an unlimited, all-you-can-eat data plan—are now subject to
regulation. Indeed, the plan finds that these practices will be subject to case-by-case review under the plan’s new “Internet conduct” standard. That standard evaluates at least seven vaguely defined factors in
determining whether a practice is allowed. The plan makes clear that these practices are now on the chopping block, with those of mobile operators under special scrutiny. This means that consumers who use less data may end up subsidizing consumers who use more data. Moreover, the President’s plan goes  out of its way to say that sponsored-data plans and zero-rating programs, like T-Mobile’s Music Freedom offering, may violate the new standard for Internet conduct. Preventing companies from differentiating themselves from the competition by giving consumers a wide variety of options will mean less choice and less free data for consumers. If you like your current service plan, you should be able to keep your current service plan. The FCC shouldn’t take it away from you.

 

Third

, President Obama’s plan gives the FCC broad and unprecedented discretion to micromanage the Internet. The plan gives a Washington bureaucracy a blank check to decide how Internet service providers deploy and manage their networks, from the last mile all the way through the
Internet backbone. Take interconnection as just one example. The plan states that the FCC can determine when a broadband provider must establish physical interconnection points, where they must locate those points, how much they can charge for the provision of that infrastructure, and how they will route traffic
over those connections. That is anything but light touch regulation. And the plan extends the FCC’s interventionist gaze well beyond this part of the network. Small wonder that some pro-regulation activists are already deeming the FCC the “Department of the Internet.”

Fourth

, the President’s plan is a gift to trial lawyers. The plan allows class-action lawsuits—with attorneys’ fees—should any trial lawyer want to challenge an Internet service provider’s network management practices or rates. Indeed, the plan expressly declines to forbear from sections 206 and 207 of the Act, which authorize such private rights of action. And it adopts a theory of broadband subscriber access services—that is, services that broadband providers supply to edge providers—that would allow anyone online to file a complaint or go to court. The end result will be more litigation and less innovation.

Fifth

, the President’s plan makes clear that more utility-style regulation is coming. In discussing additional rate regulation, tariffs, last-mile unbundling, burdensome administrative filing requirements, accounting standards, and entry and exit regulation, the plan repeatedly states that it is only
forbearing at this time. The plan is quite clear about the limited duration of its forbearance determinations, stating that the FCC will revisit the forbearance determinations in the future and proceed in an incremental manner with respect to additional regulation. In other words, over time, expect regulation to ratchet up and forbearance to fade.

Sixth

, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. The plan repeatedly states that it is only deferring a decision on new broadband taxes (such as Universal Service Fund fees and Telecommunications Relay Service fees,
among others)—not prohibiting them. And it takes pains to make clear that nothing in the draft is intended to foreclose future state or federal tax increases. Indeed, the plan engages in the same two-step we saw last year with respect to the E-Rate program: Lay the groundwork to increase taxes in the first order, and then raise them in the second. One independent estimate puts the price tag of these and other fees at $11 billion.
In the end, when you compare what the American public is being told about President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet with the actual text of that plan, these and other discrepancies become apparent. That makes it all the more important for the FCC to let the American public see the plan before
the FCC makes it the law. We should be able to have an open, transparent debate about the President’s plan.”

http://www.fcc.gov/document/comm-pai-press-stmt-president-obamas-plan-regulate-internet

Listen here:

http://www.fcc.gov/events/press-conference-fcc-commissioner-ajit-pai

FCC suspends newsroom monitoring, Commissioner Pai Statement

FCC suspends newsroom monitoring, Commissioner Pai Statement

From the FCC February 21, 2014.

“Federal Communications Commission

News Media Information: (202) 418-0500

445 12th Street, S.W.

Internet: http://www.fcc.gov

Washington, DC 20554

TTY: (888) 835-5322

This is an unofficial announcement of Commission action. Release of the full text of a Commission order constitutes official action.
See MCI v. FCC

, 515 F.2d 385 (D.C. Cir. 1974).

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:

February 21, 2014
Matthew Berry, 202-418-2005
Email: Matthew.Berry@fcc.gov

STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI

ON THE SUSPENSION OF THE CRITICAL INFORMATION NEEDS STUDY

I welcome today’s announcement that the FCC has suspended its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN study. This study would have thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country, somewhere it just doesn’t belong. The Commission has now recognized that no study by the federal government, now or in the future, should involve asking questions to media owners, news directors, or reporters about their practices. This is an
important victory for the First Amendment. And it would not have been possible without the American people making their voices heard. I will remain vigilant that any future initiatives not infringe on our constitutional freedoms.”

http://www.fcc.gov/document/commissioner-pais-statement-suspension-cin-study

 

FCC Free Press collusion, Net neutrality, Judicial Watch, Free Press Socialist Ties, Misty Truedson John Giusti email

FCC Free Press collusion, Net neutrality, Judicial Watch, Free Press Socialist Ties, Misty Truedson John Giusti email

“We control life, Winston, at all its levels. You are imagining that there is something called human nature which will be outraged by what we do and will turn against us. But we create human nature. Men are infinitely malleable.”…George Orwell, “1984

“And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed
–if all records told the same tale–then the lie passed into
history and became truth. “Who controls the past,” ran the
Party slogan, “controls the future: who controls the present
controls the past.”…George Orwell, “1984″
“Propaganda must not serve the truth, especially not insofar
as it might bring out something favorable for the opponent.”
…. Adolf Hitler

From Judicial Watch June 2, 2011.

“Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it has uncovered documents from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that indicate officials at the FCC colluded with the leftist Free Press organization to publicly push a new plan to regulate the Internet under the FCC’s so-called “net neutrality” program. Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to a December 27, 2010, Freedom of Information Act request.

In December 2010, the FCC voted 3-2 to advance its “net neutrality program.” This decision seems to fly in the face of an April, 2010 federal appeals court ruling that the FCC had exceeded its authority in seeking to regulate the Internet and enforce “net neutrality” rules.

The supporters of “net neutrality,” including Free Press, argue that high-speed Internet access is a “civil right,” and are recommending new government regulations to provide taxpayer-funded broadband Internet access to all populations, especially those deemed “underserved.” Opponents of “net neutrality” argue the program is designed to impose greater government control over the Internet and will result in less access, not more. Moreover, opponents of “net neutrality,” also dispute the claim that Internet access is a basic civil right protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Judicial Watch uncovered internal correspondence showing unusual coordination by some officials at the FCC and Free Press in pushing the “net neutrality” agenda in the run up to the controversial FCC vote in December:

•On November 2, 2010, Free Press Associate Outreach Director Misty Perez Truedson sent an email to John Giusti, Chief of Staff to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps asking if Copps would write an op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal in advance of a November 16 hearing on Internet access: “Would Commissioner Copps be interested in drafting an Op-ed in advance of the hearing? It’s a great way to get the word out and to spark conversations in advance of the event,” Truedson wrote. “We’re working on the op ed,” Giusti wrote back on November 9.”

“Free Press has deep ties to radical leftists and socialists. Robert McChesny, former editor of the socialist magazine Monthly Review, is the co-founder and president of Free Press. Kim Gandy, the Chairman of the Free Press Board of Directors, served as the President of the National Organization for Women from 2001-2009. Craig Aaron, Free Press’s President and CEO, formerly worked as managing editor of the socialist tabloid In These Times. Free Press is financially supported by George Soros’s Open Society Institute and other hard-left groups such as the Ford Foundation and Democracy Alliance.

“Net neutrality is just another Obama power grab. This is nothing less than the Obama administration’s attempt to stage a government takeover of the Internet under the guise of ‘net neutrality.’ So it should come as no surprise that Free Press, the hard left organization with socialist ties, is improperly driving the so-called net neutrality agenda from inside the Obama administration. The FCC is supposed to be an independent agency that follows the law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people should be deeply troubled by the fact that the Obama administration, on issue after issue, seems to be run by shadowy leftist organizations. Our government is supposed to be ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people’, not ‘of the Left, by the Left, and for the Left.’””

Read more:

http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2011/jun/fcc-colluded-leftist-organization-free-press-push-government-regulation-internet-docum

November 2010 elections, 5 months away, Blagojevich trial, US economy, Obama approval ratings, Cornered animals predictable

November 2010 elections, 5 months away, Blagojevich trial, US economy

The November elections are 5 months away. Obama has the lowest approval ratings in history. More and more people see the picture of the real Obama emerging. Unemployment is high, the US economy is faltering and security of the US in the world arena is in jeopardy.

It is apparent that no court, no legal remedy will challenge Obama’s eligibility in the near term. I believe that the Obama controlled US Justice Department will work to shorten the Blagojevich trial. As cocky and self confident as Blagojevich appears, he is no fool. The spectre of many years in prison is a reality if the trial plays out the way the Rezko trial did. Obama and the Democrats will do whatever is necessary to keep this circus from playing out too close to the elections.

Obama and the Orwellian and Gestapo like Obama administration are attempting to control the internet. They already control the mainstream media. I have a simple message for Obama, the FCC and any Orwellian component of government that attempts to thwart our efforts to present the truth.

Up

Yours

I and many others are committed to getting the truth out to the American public. I, if necessary, will tour the country and/or cooperate with other concerned Americans to keep the real news flowing.

We must change congress this November. It is our only chance to save this country.