Democrats Plan Net Neutrality Vote In Senate

A Democratic bill to reverse the FCC’s repeal of net neutrality rules now has enough Senate support to guarantee a vote. In a press release, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) announced that she had become the 30^th cosponsor to the measure which would return the nation to the Obama-era internet rules.

The bill, introduced by Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.), would subject the FCC decision to a vote of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act. Under the CRA, Congress has 60 legislative days to disapprove of new regulations by a simple majority vote. If Congress does not vote to disapprove, the regulations go into effect, but if Congress strikes down the new rules the FCC would be barred from reissuing a rule that is substantially the same. The president can veto a CRA disapproval vote by Congress.

The bill, HR 4585, currently lists 34 cosponsors in the House, all of them Democrats. The 30 senators supporting the bill are also all Democrats.

With Republican majorities in both the Senate and the House, the legislation seems doomed to failure, but the Democrat goal seems to be to force Republicans into an unpopular vote in a tough election year. Since the FCC vote in early December, Democrats and liberal activists have warned that the new rules will mean the end of the internet. Amid the hysteria, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has received threats that forced him to cancel an appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

“Republicans are faced with a choice,” said Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in a press release, “be on the right side of history and stand with the American people who support a free and open internet, or hold hands with the special interests who want to control the internet for their own profit.”

“Every member of the U.S. Senate will have to go on the record, during a tight election year, and either vote to save the Internet or rubber stamp its death warrant,” said Evan Greer, an internet activist quoted in The Hill.

It was Congress’ failure to address internet regulation that provided an opening for the FCC to introduce net neutrality rules as far back as 2005 and then more onerous rules under President Obama in 2015. When the legislative branch failed to enact a law establishing a national policy on internet regulation, the rules became subject to the whims of successive administrations.

While few Republicans are likely to sign up to support the Democrat bill to reestablish the Obama-era internet rules, some might be persuaded to join a compromise bill that would enact permanent internet regulations. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced a competing net neutrality bill last month, the Open Internet Preservation Act. Blackburn’s bill would prohibit throttling and blocking traffic, but would also ban the FCC from regulating the internet as a utility.

At this point, it is uncertain whether either bill can garner enough support to become law. What is certain is that as long as Congress fails to make internet policy, consumers and companies will be forced to endure regulatory swings from the left to the right and back again.  

Originally published on The Resurgent

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

Obama's plan to deal with new Congress: Bypass it

Federal agencies legislate policies that Congress can't pass

What is he thinking?

In a disturbing trend that should alarm Georgians of both parties, the Obama Administration is increasingly enacting policies through regulatory agencies that Democrats in Congress either cannot or will not pass.  This legality of this tactic is questionable, but without a doubt it circumvents the will of the people and their elected representatives in Congress.  When the people of Georgia, as well as a majority of voters in other states across the country, voted to end the Democratic majority in the House and reduce it in the Senate, it was a clear rejection of the policies that President Obama is enacting anyway.

One of the first indications that President Obama intended to circumvent the will of the people and Congress was the FCC’s recent implementation of net neutrality rules.  The decision by a party line vote among members of the FCC’s ruling board was at odds with a federal court decision only eight months earlier which said that Congress had not given the FCC authority to regulate the internet.

Similarly, just before Christmas, the EPA announced that it would begin regulating carbon emissions from power plants and oil refineries under the Clean Air Act.  Two days later, a federal court denied a request by Texas for an injunction allowing it to delay issuing greenhouse gas (GHG) permits until a permanent ruling on the regulations is reached. 

Obama’s EPA had long threatened to issue regulations on carbon dioxide and issued an endangerment finding for CO2 in April 2009.  Congress never acted on the matter, largely because of public opposition to cap-and-trade and voter anger in the wake of the health care reform law’s passage.  The revelation that climate scientists worked to intimidate skeptics into silence and covered up data that did not fit their conclusions also contributed to opposition.

Now, the EPA is doing by decree what Congress declined to do by legislation.  Central to the opposition to cap-and-trade were the realizations that it would be expensive, ultimately meaningless, and that it would handicap US industry.  The biggest flaw in the plan (and there are many) is that other countries, such as China, are not placing limits on their own CO2 emissions.  With EPA regulation, we are likely to see rising energy costs, slower economic growth, and little or no difference in the global climate.  Since CO2 is now a dangerous gas, we can expect further government encroachment into areas that were previously unregulated.  In addition to factories and refineries, numerous other sources (schools, restaurants, hospitals, cars) emit enough CO2 for the EPA to regulate.

It was also recently revealed that new regulations had secretly been issued that authorized end-of-life counseling for Medicare patients.  Democrats had tried to include this provision in President Obama’s health care reform law, but it was ultimately withdrawn amid talk of “death panels” and rationing.  Conservatives, and the American people in general, were concerned that government involvement in end-of-life planning could be used to try to convince the sick and elderly to refuse treatment in order to lower costs for Medicare. 

Rep. Earl Blumenauer

Such concerns are not unfounded.  Already the FDA has disapproved use of the breast-cancer drug Avastin.  Many critics believe that the disapproval was due to the cost of the drug, but the FDA maintains that it was due to side effects.  Additionally, there was a furor in 2009 when the government changed guidelines reducing the recommended frequency of mammograms for similar reasons.  Dr. Donald Berwick, Obama’s recess appointee to the head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is on record supporting health care rationing to control costs.

In this case, the government backed off and agreed to withdraw the rule after opposition mounted not only to the rule itself, but the manner in which it was enacted.  The original Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in July 2010 did not include the rule, while the final regulation published in November did.  This circumvented not only Congress, but the normal period in which people have the ability to review and comment new administrative laws.

An email sent out by the office of Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon) makes it seem that the rules were added in a planned bait-and-switch.  The Wall St. Journal reported that Blumenauer, who had tried to insert the end-of-life counseling provision into the original health care law, bragged of the “victory,” but asked them to maintain secrecy.  He went on to say, “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch.”

Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

Also on the subject of health insurance, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently issued a rule arbitrarily setting 10% as the limit for reasonable increases on health insurance rates.  A prime reason that many health insurance rates are increasing is President Obama’s health care reform law and its mandates for insurers.  One thing not included in the new health care law, however, was authority for the federal government to regulate health insurance rates.  Sebelius’ new regulation is yet another example of Obama appointees exceeding the authority given their agencies by Congress.

Another Obama initiative that may bypass Congress is Card Check.  The misnamed Employee Free Choice Act would remove employee’s right to a secret ballot election for union representation and instead certify a union if a majority of employees sends in union cards.  Since the National Labor Relations Board is predominantly Democrat in a Democratic administration, the same tactic could easily be used to make this significant –and unpopular – change in labor law.  Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board, Mike Pearce, has already hinted that new regulations will be more union-friendly.

President Obama’s use of executive power to make sweeping changes to law and bypass Congress may be unprecedented in US history.  Certainly if President Bush had used similar tactics to pass legislation such as the PATRIOT Act, he would have been roundly – and rightly – criticized.  While such executive legislating is questionable under the Constitution, it certainly impedes on Congress’ power to make new laws and threatens the separation of powers and the checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches.  It is a tactic that would be more expected of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez or Russia’s Vladimir Putin than an American President.

The new Congress should act swiftly to rein in President Obama’s regulatory agencies.  It should be easy to obtain a bipartisan agreement since congressional Democrats would also have an interest in preserving Congress’ constitutional authority to make laws.  This would likely involve passing laws that clearly state that these agencies are overstepping their bounds and limiting their authority.  If this trend continues, a resolution censuring President Obama and his regulatory heads might be appropriate. Georgians and voters everywhere should ask their representatives in Congress to take action.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/obama-s-plan-to-deal-with-new-congress-bypass-it"> 

Apple calls Christian app "offensive"

Apple store in Chicago.  Are religious apps not welcome? (Dweider)

When Georgia voters overwhelmingly decided that marriage should be between one man and one woman, it was not because they wanted to insult or incite violence against gays and lesbians.  On the contrary, it was because most Georgians – along with a majority of Americans whenever they have had an opportunity to vote – support a traditional view of marriage.  Protecting traditional marriage is also one of the goals of the Manhattan Declaration.

An affirmation of “the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and religious liberty” is the purpose of the Manhattan Declaration.  The declaration was signed in 2009 by more than 150 religious leaders of various denominations and then posted online as a petition for likeminded citizens.  The declaration was drafted by evangelist and former Nixon aide Chuck Colson, Princeton law professor Robert P. George, and Beeson Divinity School dean Timothy George.

In November 2010, the homosexual group Change.org submitted a petition of 7,700 signatures requesting removal of an app promoting the Manhattan Declaration.  The app had been rated as having no objectionable content.  Apple responded by removing the app from the iTunes store.  In a statement, Apple said, “We removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people."

The controversial section is only a small part of the declaration’s section on marriage.  Before addressing gay marriage, the declaration also points out that marriage is threatened by heterosexual promiscuity and infidelity.  It points out that symptoms of the decline of marriage include the prevalence of out-of-wedlock births and the high divorce rate.  It also calls the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples a “symptom, rather than the cause, of the erosion of marriage culture.”

When the declaration does address the redefinition of marriage, it takes pains to be respectful of homosexuals even while disagreeing with them, saying that “We have compassion for those so disposed; we respect them as human beings possessing profound, inherent, and equal dignity.”  The section closes with an explanation of the Christian position:  “And so it is out of love (not ‘animus’) and prudent concern for the common good (not ‘prejudice’), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture.  How could we, as Christians, do otherwise?”

The authors of the Manhattan Declaration took great pains to explain the Christian positions on marriage, the sanctity of life, and religious liberty while not offending those who disagree.  Unfortunately, it would seem that gay-marriage proponents and Apple are not affording those who agree with the declaration the same courtesy.  For too many on the left, any dissent from the politically correct orthodoxy is deemed homophobic.

When Apple banned the Manhattan Declaration app, the group began an appeals process with a petition of their own.  They also modified the app so that it would be even less offensive to those who disagree.  The modified app was resubmitted on December 8 and turned down by Apple on December 22.  In a recent email to signers of the Declaration, Apple’s rejection letter was quoted as saying that "references or commentary about a religious, cultural or ethnic group that are defamatory, offensive, mean-spirited or likely to expose the targeted group to harm or violence will be rejected.  We have evaluated the content of this application and consider its contents to be objectionable and potentially harmful to others."

The declaration does not defame or call for harm to any group, but respectfully describes Christian teachings on several issues.  By extension, this means that Apple not only objects to the Manhattan Declaration, but to traditional Christian teaching in general.  Censorship of the app is not about defaming homosexuals, but about preventing a Christian viewpoint from being propagated in the marketplace of ideas.

Ironically, at the same time Apple was denying the Manhattan Declaration’s app placement in the iTunes store, the FCC was exerting control over the internet under the guise of “net neutrality.”  Net neutrality purports to protect the internet from having corporations block access to legitimate web content.  An example might be a large developer of technical gadgets and software prohibiting a group from accessing its virtual store; kind of like Apple blocking the Manhattan Declaration app.

It is also somewhat ironic that the final section of the Manhattan Declaration focuses on religious liberty.  There is a growing movement to restrict religious freedom and freedom of conscience even in this country, especially as it pertains to the sanctity of life and protecting marriage. Chuck Colson actually warned about the growing threat to the freedom of religious speech a few months ago, pointing out that President Obama’s appointee to the EEOC, Chai Feldblum, is on record as saying   “I'm having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win.  Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that's the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”  It is unlikely that the Obama FCC will intervene to prevent censorship of the app.

The dispute with Apple is ongoing.  The Manhattan Declaration organization is planning to ask Apple to submit to arbitration in the matter.  The petition to restore the app has garnered almost 50,000 signatures thus far and the declaration itself has been signed by about 500,000 concerned citizens.

In one of his Breakpoint radio messages this week, Chuck Colson requested that supporters of the Manhattan Declaration contact Apple to request reinstatement of the app.  You can email Steve Jobs of Apple at Steve@Apple.com or call Apple at 408-996-1010.  You can also sign the reinstatement petition to Apple here:  http://www.colsoncenter.org/petition. 

You can also read and sign the Manhattan Declaration here:  http://manhattandeclaration.org/the-declaration/read.aspx.

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/apple-calls-christian-app-offensive"> 

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