FCC Chairman Attacks Twitter For Viewpoint Discrimination

Fresh from his announcement of a plan to repeal net neutrality rules, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is going on the offensive against tech companies that limit the online speech of conservatives. Pai singled out Twitter for blocking an ad campaign by a Republican senatorial candidate.

While net neutrality rules focus internet service providers, Pai argues that it is the “edge providers,” companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter that provide content directly to users, that “are a much bigger actual threat to an open Internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint” per CNN.

“When it comes to a free and open internet, Twitter is part of the problem,” Pai said.

In October, Twitter blocked an ad campaign by Marsha Blackburn, a Republican campaigning for the seat of the retiring Bob Corker (R-Tenn.). Twitter said that a video containing the line, “I fought Planned Parenthood and we stopped the sale of baby body parts,” violated its advertising standards. Politico reports that Twitter did not remove the video, but did not allow the Blackburn campaign to pay to promote it.

“Anyone voluntarily following her account could see it, as is their choice as a consumer when they choose to follow her,” a Twitter spokesman told CNN. “Because advertisements are served to users who do not necessarily follow an account, we therefore have higher standards for their content.”

Earlier this month, Twitter also announced that it would remove the verification badges from accounts that violate company guidelines. The company revoked verification from some alt-right and white supremacist accounts such as Richard Spencer and Jason Kessler. Tim Gionet, another alt-right tweeter who used the handle “Baked Alaska,” was banned permanently.

Pai also criticized celebrities Cher, George Takei, Mark Ruffalo, and Alyssa Milano by name for what he called “absurd” statements about the repeal of net neutrality. Pai read a tweet by Ruffalo that claimed, “Taking away #NetNeutrality is the Authoritarian dream.”

“These comments are absurd,” Pai said. “Getting rid of government authority over the Internet is the exact opposite of authoritarianism.”

Several companies have been fined for violating net neutrality since the FCC adopted the standard in 2005. These cases stem from companies blocking access to competing products rather than censoring opposing viewpoints. Earlier this year, AT&T was accused of restricting access to Facetime, an Apple video calling app, for users who had not purchased AT&T shared data plans.

The FCC board members will vote on the repeal of net neutrality at their meeting on Dec. 14.

Originally published on The Resurgent

FCC To Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, is unveiling a proposal to repeal the agency’s net neutrality rules. The proposal to roll back the Obama-era regulations will be subject to a vote by commissioners on December 14 per Wired.

Net neutrality essentially means that internet service providers are “common carriers” and must treat all data on the internet the same and not use charge different fees for different users. The principle prevents ISPs from charging more to customers that use large amounts of data and from slowing, or “throttling,” data for heavy users.

Although net neutrality legislation was never passed by Congress, it was implemented through an FCC policy statement in 2005. The Obama Administration implemented more stringent rules in 2015 that classed internet providers as common carriers. Those rules remain in place today.

There have been several real-world applications of the principle. In 2004, the FCC fined Madison River Communications $15,000 for restricting its customers access to Vonage, an internet-based phone company that that competed with Madison River’s own products. In 2009, Comcast slowed uploads to some filesharing sites. Earlier this year, AT&T was still restricting access to Facetime for some users who had not subscribed to the company’s shared data plans despite the net neutrality rules that were already in place.

Proponents of net neutrality worry that repeal of the rules would lead to censorship. “Companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon would be able to decide who is heard and who isn’t,” says the activist group Free Press. “They’d be able to block websites or content they don’t like or applications that compete with their own offerings.”

“The consequences would be particularly devastating for marginalized communities [sic] media outlets have misrepresented or failed to serve,” Free Press frets. “People of color, the LGBTQ community, indigenous peoples and religious minorities in the United States rely on the open internet to organize, access economic and educational opportunities, and fight back against systemic discrimination.”

There is little evidence to suggest that internet providers would target ethnic groups or political factions, but there is a strong possibility that companies would favor their own products. “Well-established services from deep-pocketed companies like Google, Facebook, and Microsoft will likely remain widely available,” says Wired. “But net-neutrality advocates argue that smaller companies that don’t have the money to pay for fast lanes could suffer. In other words, protecting net neutrality isn't about saving Netflix, but about saving the next Netflix.”

As with any change in government policy, there are likely to be lawsuits by affected groups that could change or delay implementation of the new policy. The FCC move may also spur Congress to take legislative action. There is bipartisan support for bill that would establish a permanent policy rather than having major changes with each new administration.

Repealing net neutrality rules will not lead to internet censorship, but it will affect some internet users. Consumers who are in areas where there are monopolies for cable and internet service would be particularly vulnerable to restrictive policies of their internet providers.

Originally published on The Resurgent

FCC wants to allow electronic devices in flight

For frequent travelers, one of the biggest drawbacks to ereaders is that they can’t be used during taxi, takeoff and landing on commercial airline flights. As other passengers relax with newspapers or old fashioned books, tech savvy travelers have to twiddle their thumbs while the airplane moves to the runway and climbs through 10,000 feet. That may be about to change soon.

This week The Hill learned that Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, had sent a letter to the acting administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, Michael Huerta, recommending that the FAA “enable greater use of tablets, e-readers, and other portable devices” in flight.

Earlier this year, The Hill reported that the FAA was studying the possibility of allowing expanded use of electronic devices. While the FAA study specifically excluded the use of “voice communications” in flight, the FCC recommendation may pave the way for passengers to use tablets, ereaders, MP3 players and DVD players during all phases of flight.

Last year, American Airlines became the first airline to allow its pilots to use iPads to access charts and manuals in flight. Many passengers have undoubtedly wondered why pilots can use electronic devices when passengers cannot.

If the FAA does approve expanded use of electronic devices, passengers will likely still be limited to using “airplane mode.” The FAA will probably not allow the use of devices that transmit or receive while the aircraft is in flight. According to the FCC website, both agencies prohibit the use of wireless devices in flight “because of potential interference to the aircraft’s navigation and communication systems.”

The FCC had considered allowing in-flight use of wireless devices in 2007, but decided that there was insufficient information to determine whether airborne devices could harm networks on the ground. Passengers would still be able to purchase internet access from a provider such as Gogo if their plane is equipped.

The FAA points out that cell phones are different from other electronic devices because they transmit signals over long distances. To allow phones to be used for voice communications in flight, the air carrier would have to demonstrate that each particular model of phone would not interfere with each particular type of aircraft. The extensive testing required would make certification costs prohibitively expensive. The FAA does allow phones to be used for voice communications after landing as the plane taxies to the gate.

The FAA website also notes that most domestic airlines block the use of Skype and other voice-over-internet-protocol (VOIP) applications through their in-flight internet service providers. This is not because of an FAA restriction, but because most passengers don’t want to hear other passengers talking on the phone. This makes it questionable whether airlines would permit in-flight voice communications even if the FAA and FCC allowed them.

Any FAA rule change regarding electronic devices is unlikely to come before this year’s Christmas travel season. If you want to use your electronic device during your holiday air travel, keep it handy, but don’t turn it on until after takeoff.

Originally published on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/fcc-pushes-for-flight-use-of-electronic-devices?cid=db_articles

What is net neutrality?

jscreationzs

Georgians by now realize that the fancy, technical names given by politicians to laws and policies are often misleading. The Democrats seem especially guilty of this tactic since so many of their ideas would be unpopular if the people knew their details. After all, if the people of Georgia and America knew that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would actually drive up prices and lead to shortages of health insurance, it would have been even more unpopular than it already was.

Such is the case with net neutrality. If Georgians knew that it was going to result in more government regulation of the internet and higher costs to access the web, while at the same time discouraging investment and stifling innovation, they would have strongly opposed the policy. Instead, almost nobody noticed the bland-sounding policy.

The term “net neutrality” evokes images of protecting the internet from undue political or corporate influence, yet in reality the opposite is true. Net neutrality was a call from leftists groups for increased government regulation and oversight of the internet.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, John Fund describes the backers of net neutrality. The concept began as a media reform campaign by Robert McChesney’s Free Press organization. McChesney wrote that “the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies… but the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

Fund goes on to describe how a confederation that included most of the same groups that created the “Astroturf” movement demanding campaign finance reform has pushed net neutrality. Campaign finance reform resulted in the McCain-Feingold law, which was ultimately ruled to be an unconstitutional limit on free speech. These leftist groups, including Free Press and the Pew Charitable Trusts, sponsored studies backing net neutrality. These studies were prominently cited in the FCC’s “National Broadband Plan.”

The FCC originally tried to impose net neutrality in a ruling against Comcast in August 2008. However, in April 2010, a federal appeals court in Washington, DC decided that Congress had not given the FCC legal authority to regulate the internet.

The following month, a bipartisan group of congressmen sent letters to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stating in no uncertain terms that his plans for net neutrality were a bad idea. A letter by seventy-four Democrats stated that it would “jeopardize jobs" and "should not be done without additional direction from Congress.” Thirty-seven Republicans wrote that Genachowski’s planned rules were “heavy-handed 19th century regulations" that are "inconceivable" and illegal.


In response, the FCC unilaterally decided to reinterpret its jurisdiction over telephones to include the authority to regulate the internet. This week’s vote to impose net neutrality rules in a party line vote among the FCC’s five-member board. Chairman Genachowski and two Democratic members of the board voted for net neutrality, while the two Republican members opposed it. The FCC essentially extended government control over the internet after being told by both Congress and the courts that it did not have that authority. President Obama appointed Chairman Genachowski and the FCC answers to the President.

What does net neutrality mean for you?

The new net neutrality regulations will prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking access to legal websites and allow the FCC to determine if ISPs are “unreasonable” in prioritizing internet traffic on its network.

However, there has been no history of companies blocking access to websites. This was a manufactured crisis (a la Rahm Emanuel) in order to justify increased regulation. In reality, ISPs have voluntarily refrained from blocking web access. In contrast, the federal government has been shutting down websites without due process.

The use of the word “unreasonable” is ambiguous. As Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said, it is “perhaps the most litigated word in American history.” The wording leaves the enforcement of the regulations open to arbitrary interpretation. This means that, not only will there be legal challenges, but internet companies will be forced to lobby FCC and other government officials to gain approval for their business plans. As Woodrow Wilson said, “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don't you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don't you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it?”

Additionally, the new rules say that ISPs can charge more to customers who use more bandwidth. This means that, where most internet users now pay roughly the same, if you watch a lot of online videos or movies or play memory-intensive games, you might have to pay more for your internet access in the near future.

Finally, the new rules will likely inhibit investment and innovation. New regulations will likely make it harder for new companies to enter the web marketplace. In the past few years, new internet companies have risen from inception to multi-billion dollar firms in a few short years. Google and Facebook are both ubiquitous but less than fifteen years old. New hardware, software and websites are being introduced constantly. Government interference can only slow and hamper this process.

In summary, everyone is unhappy with the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Leftists who fear corporations and embrace government control want harsher rules. Conservatives and libertarians who believe in limited government feel that the FCC should stay out of the internet, especially since Congress has not extended the agency authority to regulate it. There will almost certainly be legal challenges due the vague and arbitrary nature of the law. Equally certain is that the Republicans will seek to rein in President Obama and his rogue agency when they take control of the House of Representatives next year.

Photo:  
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1152