Bowsite.com

The Federal Communications Commission is in the middle of a high-stakes decision that could raise taxes for close to 90 percent of Americans. The commission is considering whether to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service and, in doing so, Washington would trigger new taxes and fees at the state and local level.

The agency would like to make Internet service a public utility, placing broadband under Title II regulation of the Communications Act of 1934. This move would make broadband subject to New Deal-era regulation, and have significant consequences for U.S. taxpayers.

Under this decision to reclassify broadband, Americans would face a host of new state and local taxes and fees that apply to public utilities. These new levies, according to the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), would total $15 billion annually. On average, consumers would pay an additional $67 for landline broadband, and $72 for mobile broadband each year, according to PPI’s calculations, with charges varying from state to state.

continued...

"Speaking at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, the Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler has strongly hinted that his new net neutrality rules will treat broadband Internet service providers as utilities ."

Read my post above.

(note: there are some links within this at this Patterico link)

Danger Will Robinson: Free Speech Threatened by Terrorism Forum and Net Neutrality

Those who worry about the federal government stomping on conservatives’ free speech have good reason to be worried today. Obama’s upcoming “international forum” on terrorism, together with a renewed push for Net Neutrality, together form a terrible but largely undiscussed threat to the speech of conservatives, in particular Tea Partiers.

Let’s start with the terrorism forum. As mentioned by Dana here, the New York Times reported yesterday:

Mr. Holder announced that the White House would convene an international forum on Feb. 18 to discuss new means of countering terrorism. The White House, in a statement, said the meeting would address domestic and international measures “to prevent violent extremists and their supporters from radicalizing, recruiting, or inspiring individuals or groups in the United States and abroad to commit acts of violence.”

You know what this administration means when they talk about “violent extremists,” right?

Tea Partiers.

And what “inspires” Tea Partiers more than dangerous talk on the Internet about the problems inherent in big government?

Better rein in that talk pronto!

There’s not much of a way to do that . . . yet. Government still has little direct control over the Internet . . . yet.

In unrelated news (OK, I already told you it is related), Politico reported Thursday: FCC’s Tom Wheeler in step with Barack Obama on net neutrality (cached link):

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler offered his strongest endorsement to date of tough net neutrality rules, aligning himself with President Barack Obama’s vision for an open Internet.

Speaking here at the 2015 International CES tech trade show, Wheeler repeatedly hinted he favors reclassification of broadband as a public utility, which would subject Internet providers to some of the same rules that govern old phone companies. The approach is already drawing heavy fire from Republicans and telecom giants who warn it will lead to burdensome regulation.

The FCC has slated a vote for February.

Listen up, people.

Once the federal government is in control of the Internet, it is just a matter of time until it imposes oppressive policies that will burden those who criticize government. All in the name of “fairness” and “equality,” of course.

Remember the “Fairness Doctrine” that threatened to push Rush Limbaugh off the air — because it would have required radio stations to fill their airwaves with three hours of dreary leftist droning to “balance” the highly entertaining Limbaugh? That was in the interest of “fairness.” I categorized some other FCC-related thuggery in this 2010 post, and it’s worth clicking through these links if you think that it’s a good idea to give the FCC power over the Internet:

Whether it’s Democrats’ threatening to pull Fox News’s broadcast license because they don’t like the content; or Harry Reid & Co. writing a mafia-style letter threatening ABC’s broadcast license over “The Path to 9/11?; or the DNC threatening Sinclair Broadcasting’s broadcast license over an anti-Kerry documentary; or Obama’s thugs threatening networks’ broadcast licenses over criticism from the NRA; or, most recently, Kathleen Sebelius suggesting that insurance companies had better not claim they’re raising rates because of ObamaCare, or they may find themselves regulated out of existence . . . based on these examples and many more, the public has a special need to fear Democrats’ bringing down the hammer when they engage in free speech.

Note how many of those examples involve politicians using the threat of action by the FCC: the very bureaucracy that would gain regulatory authority over the Internet if Net Neutrality becomes reality.

But hey. If it prevents a lot of that dangerous talk from those Tea Party extremists, then it’s all for the public good. And you wouldn’t be against the public good, now — would you, comrade?

I have AT&T/Bell South..I don't have much choice on providers due to where I live but at the same time I don't see them blocking me from any information or how fast I get it.

Now the Government control is a whole 'nother story. If you are concerned about "these companies colluding" with the NSA to get our personal information then you are probably correct. However, I KNOW that if the government is involved you can guaren-damn-tee that they will get your personal information. You speak of more security? Where is this security you're talking about going to come from?

I don't know where your info is coming from.

Plus the fact it's under government control is a major plus. Right?

Imagine folks, the same charlie-foxtrots that couldn't roll out a damn web site are in charge of providing you with internet service.

But your link says Time Warner customers. Can you say LIBERAL?

However, as to Government controlled Internet..No thanks.

Guess what government agency got hacked today...including their Youtube channel.

Obama, Holder, the DO(in)J and others in the administration and Democrat party have indicated that some speech is free-er than others...especially when it comes to speaking out against Islamic extremism. We do not need a government regulated 1A.

BTW: most people get their Internet access via their local phone companies...not cable or satellite. DSL, which most rural subscribers have for fast(er)internet service is distance limited...both access and speed. A large part of this country still is limited to dial-up. In many rural areas, even data access via a cell phone can be quite iffy.

But we all know, if you like your Internet you can keep it (NOT);o(

You mean newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, cable?

Time, CBS, NBC, ABC, Reuters, etc?

FCC commissioner: Get ready for a government takeover of the Internet

Call it the largest plan for government regulation that no one can read — at least, the largest in almost five years. This time, though, even Congress can’t read it yet, even if they were so inclined. The plan comes from FCC chair Tom Wheeler, and it imposes Barack Obama’s vision of Net Neutrality by regulatory fiat. FCC commissioner Ajit Pai says to get ready for a government takeover — and lots and lots of new taxes:

First, 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. It’s no wonder that net neutrality proponents are already bragging that it will turn the FCC into the “Department of the Internet.” For that reason, if you like dealing with the IRS, you are going to love the President’s plan.

Second, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will increase consumers’ monthly broadband bills. The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband. Indeed, states have already begun discussions on how they will spend the extra money. These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.

Third, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will mean slower broadband for American consumers. The plan contains a host of new regulations that will reduce investment in broadband networks. That means slower Internet speeds. It also means that many rural Americans will have to wait longer for access to quality broadband.

Fourth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet will hurt competition and innovation and move us toward a broadband monopoly. The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market. As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get. We shouldn’t bring Ma Bell back to life in this dynamic, digital age.

Fifth, President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet is an unlawful power grab. Courts have twice thrown out the FCC’s attempts at Internet regulation. There’s no reason to think that the third time will be the charm. 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.

And sixth, the American people are being misled about what is in President Obama’s plan to regulate the Internet. The rollout earlier in the week was obviously intended to downplay the plan’s massive intrusion into the Internet economy. Beginning next week, I look forward to sharing with the public key aspects of what this plan will actually do.

lots more at link

(Remember--this is the same sort of action by the Obamunists when it came to Obamacare)

Republican FCC Commissioner Slams ‘Obama’s 332-Page Plan To Regulate The Internet’

From the link:

"...he 332-page plan, which he tweeted a picture of himself holding next to a picture of Obama, won’t be released to the public until after the commission votes on its implementation later this month.

“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,” Pai said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

In his initial cursory overview of the plan, the commissioner said it would hinder broadband investment, slow network speed and expansion, limit outgrowth to rural areas of the country and reduce Internet service provider (ISP) competition.

“The plan saddles small, independent businesses and entrepreneurs with heavy-handed regulations that will push them out of the market,” Pai said. “As a result, Americans will have fewer broadband choices. This is no accident. Title II was designed to regulate a monopoly. If we impose that model on a vibrant broadband marketplace, a highly regulated monopoly is what we’ll get.”

Read it and weep...

Those "way-out-crazy"plots seen on TV/movies when it comes to Big Brother just may be true! And deaths will be blamed on manufacturing defects/driver errors and OPRESS™ will be reporting on the latest recall.

Oh...did anyone catch the story about "smart" TVs being able to listen in on your conversations? Read the fine print in your user manuals.

Removal of trolls might be considered a felony...or at least worthy of an IRS audit.

Friday on Newsmax TV’s “The Steve Malzberg Show,” FCC commissioner Ajit Pai said President Barack Obama is about to succeed in his attempt to take “alarmingly unprecedented direct involvement” into the FCC’s plan to regulate the internet, which he explained will mean “billions of dollars in new taxes,” slower broadband speeds and “less competition.”

Discussing the plan that the FCC has refused to let the public see Pai said, “Unfortunately it looks like the cake has been baked. President Obama gave his direction to the FCC in back in early November and lo and behold, the FCC majority has put together President Obama’s plan for Internet regulation. And it looks to be posed pass it on a 3-to-2 vote.”

When asked if the president’s move was an “alarmingly unprecedented direct involvement,” into FCC, Pai agreed, explaining the FCC has been an independent agency since 1934, he said, “When you have a politician shortly after the midterm election deciding to direct the agency to do x, y, z and telling us he wants us to use a particular legal theory to do it you’re in uncharted territory, at least in my experience. I think compromising the independence of the agency is bad enough, but especially when it involves the government control the Internet. That is just a dangerous road for us to travel on.”

What could possibly to wrong?

The Regulatory Leviathan [CBD]

Conservatives tend to criticize overlarge government on general principles: it is inherently inefficient, it doesn't do a good job at...well...anything, it slows economic growth through its maze of fees and licenses and controls over exactly how things should be done. These are all excellent reasons to eviscerate the state and its control over commerce.

But perhaps the most dangerous of its effects on the economy is what doesn't happen -- innovation.

Here is Coyote Blog in one of his regular and worthwhile rants against the regulatory state. There is a bonus too: he skewers Kevin Drum!.

Here is what regulation, particularly utility-style regulation, tends to do -- it locks in current business models and competitors. It makes it really hard for new entrants to challenge incumbents with innovative new business models or approaches, because regulations have been written based on the old business model and did not take the new one in account. So a new entrant must begin business by getting regulators to allow their new model, which never happens because by this time incumbents have buildings full of lobbyists aimed at the regulatory process. Go ask Tesla and Uber and Lyft about how easy it is to enter a heavily regulated business even with a superior new business model.

I used to pay $.25/minute for a long distance telephone call. And a large fee for my paving brick-sized rotary phone and the line into my house. And service was fine most of the time, except for international calls, which were a crap-shoot.

Now? Since the breakup of the telephone monopoly, telecommunications has exploded into dozens of companies with unbelievable technology and services that are much less expensive and much better than anything available before the AT&T breakup in 1982. Of course innovation would have driven incremental changes to our telephone services regardless of the consent decree, but does anyone believe that we would have what we have today were it not for the opening of the telecom markets to vicious, cutthroat competition between the many telecommunications companies, the hardware makers, the software shops....etc?

The true damage of regulation is not what we can see...it is what we will never have.

The Army itself (gov) is just breaking ground in adult learning for the asymmetrical war we are engaged in based on learning theory from the 70's.....

I am sure you want the internet to devolve but I don't.

Does anyone think our military is a failure? "

No, the military is great, but has been doomed to failure when it is micromanaged by politicians. Our military has been run under political correctness ever since Viet Nam--our politicians have not allowed them to actually win a war.

It has gotten even worse under modern day democrat-progressive-socialists who restrict the military by ROEs that have caused far too many casualties of our own men and women who serve. They are more concerned with social engineering and political correctness than with actually destroying an enemy and winning a war.

What the bill actually does is irrelevant to this tactic.

Likewise, "Net Neutrality" is something that sounds good, but the more accurate term would be "Net Control and Stagnation." But good intentions are more important than the actual content of the bill.

It's also been done with "jobs" bills that are actually bills to subsidize ineffective training programs.

JT

What on earth are you talking about?

I see no need for any new regulations on the internet, and plenty of reasons why it should not happen.

Last week, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler announced, via an op-ed in Wired, magazine, that the FCC would reclassify the American Internet infrastructure as a utility under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934.

You read that correctly: they are going to use a law written 80 years ago and signed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to decide how the Internet should operate.

Ostensibly to protect us from our service providers, Wheeler and his Democratic counterparts on the Commission decided, at the behest of President Obama, to change how the Internet operates, massively.

Let’s be clear, though: outside a noisy band of activists, no one believes that this action is either necessary or advisable.

The Obama administration guide to significant policy decisions stipulates that, rather than taking a practical approach to solve problems, or potential problems, it must be driven by an ideological desire to achieve a stated goal. In this case, Chairman Wheeler has concluded that using a meat-axe to conduct surgery on the Internet is his only legitimate option.

This despite the fact that Senator John Thune (R-SD) is currently working on legislation in Congress to address some of the concerns raised by Net Neutrality advocates. In a speech earlier this week, Thune warned that: “The White House and the FCC [both] appear determined to avoid meaningful bipartisan policy-making any way that they can.”

Not long after the FCC’s announcement, former FCC Chairman Michael Powell stated that the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) will most likely sue over the Title II declaration. The tech news site Fierce Cable quoted Powell as saying: “I think it’s just too dramatic, too serious a change not to ask the court to review the propriety of what the commission did, particularly when so much of it rests on whether it had the authority to do it in the first place.”

Rather than plowing massive investment back into their networks, Internet Service Providers will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in legal fees fighting Title II in court–a process likely to take years. In that scenario the only winners are the lawyers for both sides, who will enjoy a good laugh at their new beach houses as we wonder why Netflix won’t stop buffering.

Since its creation 25 years ago, the Internet has spurred the greatest innovative period in human history. Broadband, and the products and services that have been created around it, have fundamentally changed the way most Americans live their lives.

All of this has happened because Bill Clinton’s White House and Newt Gingrich’s Congress were far-sighted enough to see that in 1996, heavy regulation of a burgeoning industry was ill-advised. And now, after we’ve seen billions of dollars invested, after hundreds of thousands of new American jobs have been created, and after smart phones have freed us from our desks, the FCC is planning to place its governmental clamp on the system.

It’s the wrong idea, at the wrong time, implemented badly.

The Title II decision will not spur new innovation and investment. It will spawn uncertainty and stagnation as all the players, from big cable and telephone companies to small app developers sit and wait as an unnecessary fight drags on.

For an administration that claims to be so progressive, and care so much about the middle class, Title II seems like a giant step backward–about eight decades backward.

It didn't work in Gutenberg's day and I don't believe it will happen now.

They can certainly implement controls temporarily but the backlash would be significant to any political party that supports it.

It's not like people will swarm back to the corporate controlled media because it's the only thing available. I think people are fed up with "controlled" news. At least the ones that are paying attention.

Those that aren't paying attention will continue to support those news sources only because it is ingrained in their nature.

That's the way I see it.

On One America News Network’s “The Daily Ledger,” FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai detailed some of the regulations he has found going though the secret 332-page proposed FCC plan designed by President Barack Obama to regulate the Internet.

When asked what he felt was the worst aspect of the secret FCC plan Pai said, “Most perniciously, when you think about it, the FCC for the first time is going to start second guessing even what kind of service plan you have. And it explicitly mentions for example ‘T-Mobile Music Freedom,’ which allows you to steam music to your mobile device without counting against your data cap. The FCC explicitly tees that up as a practice it might end up outlawing.”

Echoing the anti-Obamacare arguments he added, “If you like your service plan, you should be able to keep your service plan, and the FCC shouldn’t be able to take that away from you.”

The Internet isn't broken. Obama doesn't need to 'fix' it.

Before the rules are changed, we see an indication of what is in store:

FCC leadership now trying to block Commissioner Pai's press releases from FCC website. So much for Open Internet!

Why Can't the Public See Obama's Proposed Internet Regulations?

We did the "have to pass the bill to see what's in it" thing with Obamacare. It didn't turn out well.

The fact the proposals were kept secret most likely curtailed the public comments to a large degree.

If you don't know what's in it, hard to comment on the contents.

You can be certain the regulations were written by progressive bureaucrats being directed by their progressive manchild leader and his staff.

Not Good, would be an enormous understatement.

"The Only Way You Can Delete This NSA Malware Is to Smash Your Hard Drive to Bits"

A sigificant report by security vendor Kaspersky Labs reveals a range of highly sophisticated cyberwar tools likely deployed over the last decade by American intel agencies.

Most interesting of all is NLS_933W.DLL, which -- in my view -- represents the "Holy Grail" of malware.

The names called out like beacons from the screen: Samsung; Seagate; Western Digital; Hitachi; Maxtor. Hardware makers were in the crosshairs of the Equation APT group and it was perhaps the worst possible scenario imagined by researchers looking at the frightening and extensive storehouse of capabilities within the attack platform.

By extending its reach into hard drive firmware, for example, this espionage gang had perpetual persistence on compromised machines. No matter of clean-up efforts could scrub module nls_933w.dll from hardware. None.

“This is an ultimate persistence mechanism, and it has the ultimate resilience to removal. This is a next level of persistence never seen before,” said Vitaly Kamluk, principal security researcher with Kaspersky Lab’s Global Research and Analysis Team...

Matthew Braga offers some additional detail:

...Such an exploit could survive a complete hard drive wipe, or the re-installation of an operating system, and "exceeds anything we have ever seen before," the company’s researchers wrote in a new re?p?ort...

...These modules can target practically every hard drive manufacturer and brand on the market, including Seagate, Western Digital, Samsung, Toshiba, Corsair, Hitachi and more. Such attacks have traditionally been difficult to pull off, given the risk in modifying hard drive software, which may explain why Kaspersky could only identify a handful of very specific targets against which the attack was used, where the risk was worth the reward...

This particular brand of malware may have been reported in France in 2008, but was apparently never tracked down at that time.

One other (tangential) point: back in the 90's I used to argue that Microsoft's design of the "Registry" for machine configuration was a flawed and dangerous approach. My reasoning was manifold: the file format was proprietary; it was extremely fragile; backups and restores of individual configuration settings were difficult at best; and it was hard to detect malicious or ill-intentioned use.

What's the matter with discrete, text configuration files, like those Linux uses (e.g., httpd.conf for Apache)?

The Equation Group leveraged the Registry's flaws across the board. They stuffed malicious files into multiple branches of an infected machine's Registry, which made the infection "impossible to detect using antivirus software".

I rest my circa-1995 case.

From the article:

"...In one key passage of the column published in Politico, the duo wrote Monday that heavy-handed FCC regulations like those imposed in Europe will significantly slow down Internet speech.

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote.

They also joined to warn about the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission eyeing regulation of political speech on the Internet.

Noting recent votes on the issue that ended in a political deadlock, the two wrote, “these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.”

Bottom line, they warned: “Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs — with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”

That is so true. It only matters on principle and the ability of the Orwellian State to tighten the noose one more notch.

Matt, this statement proves more than any of your other previous imbecilic utterances, that you are a complete baa-bleating retard. But you make for good entertainment.

O's working on that too, 9 general officers, so far, have been fired and replaced.

BMB!!!!!

With apologies to Terry Bradshaw, I'll bet he gets cat wrong if we spot him the C and the A.

Spoken by someone who couldn't survive without the government. You're a real man, aintcha?

"Who dictates who plows your road?"

Local township...pretty good job, too.

"Who dictates your mail?"

Dictates? Oh, deliver... pay all bills on line. Well, I used to.

"Who decides if your meet is going to be fresh"

Meet? Oh, meat. I decide. Me. I fill our freezer. Just like a real man. I usually don't give the does a chance to scamper away nervously.

"..and your medication actually works and won't kill you?"

It's estimated that upwards of 100,000 folks die each year due to prescription drug side effects.

Yeah, you're on a roll...

Bowsite's line of the decade! ROTFLMAO!

This unprecedented move by the FCC is not only an egregious seizure of regulatory power and a clear violation of the 1996 Communications Act, which wisely prohibits the federal government from regulating broadband Internet services. It also begins in earnest the slow, suffocating, inevitable demise of the Internet as we know it today — the open and expansive universe and source of information, innovation, entertainment, and communication. What was previously bound only by the limits of the our imagination and the frontiers of our technology will now be suffocated by Washington bureaucrats, whose action today will benefit not internet consumers, entrepreneurs, and innovators, but the well-connected special interests that stand to profit from the diminished competition that invariably follows heavy-handed government regulation.

The Internet has been one of the most productive and innovative sectors of our economy, flourishing even as the rest of our economy sputtered, precisely because it has been open and free of exactly this kind of government regulation. Today the FCC made clear that it has no interest in governing within the authority given to it by Congress and that it is eager to discard the objectivity that is expected of an independent, non-partisan agency, in favor of rank partisanship carried out on behalf of our imperious president.

This being the case, Congress now has an obligation to reassess the proper role – if any – of the FCC and to determine whether it does more harm than good in a 21st century world.

Or, before that happens, Congress will invalidate it.

This is stupid idea promoted by people who can't keep their hands off a good thing. Damn busybodies.

LoL Bowbender!

Yeah. They "scamper away nervously" with two bleeding holes.

The End of Freedom in America

The America that has existed from the days of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, when its sovereignty was acknowledged by a treaty with England 1783, and its founding in 1788 with the ratification of the Constitution is no more. The America for which thousands fought and gave their lives is no more.

That America ends on February 26 when the Federal Communications Commission, under intense pressure from the Obama White House and with the votes of its Democratic Party commissioners asserts government control over the Internet with a 332-page set of regulations, dubbed “Net Neutrality.”

Writing in the Feb 22nd Wall Street Journal, columnist L. Gordon Crovitz summed up what will occur saying “Obamanet promises to fix an Internet that isn’t broken…The permissionless Internet which allows anyone to introduce a website, app, or device without government review, ends this week.”

“The big politicization came when President Obama in November demanded that the supposedly independent FCC apply agency’s most extreme regulation to the Internet.” Of course Obama wants the Internet regulated and of course the Democratic Party will support this move to control who gets to put up a website or blog and, more importantly, who gets to say anything critical of the President.

The Democratic Party has been in everything but name the Communist Party in the United States for several decades. Obama was raised and mentored to be a Marxist. What we are witnessing is nothing less than tyranny replacing democracy.

Crovitz warned that “This week Mr. Obama’s bureaucrats will give him the regulated Internet he demands. Unless Congress or the courts block Obamanet, it will be the end of the Internet as we know it.”

Earlier this week, as reported by Giuseppe Macri in The Daily Caller the FCC’s two Republican commissioners, Ajit Pai and Michael O’Rielly, asked Chairman Tom Wheeler “to delay the vote and release his proposal to the public. ‘We respectfully request that FCC leadership immediately release the 332-page Internet regulation plan publicly and allow the American people a reasonable period of not less than 30 days to carefully study it.'”

There is some evil at work here because, as the Republican commissioners point out, “the plan in front of us right now is so drastically different than the proposal the FCC adopted and put out for public comment last May.”

Shades of ObamaCare! Even the Democrats who voted that monstrosity into law had not read it. Now neither Congress, nor the rest of America is being permitted to see regulations that will determine what can and cannot be posted to the Internet, the greatest instrument of free speech ever invented since the printing press.

Commissioner Pai says that the FCC is “adopting a solution that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have.” He estimates that the regulations will add up to $11 billion in new taxes on Internet access.

In a commentary, “Neutralize Obama’s Hijacking of the Internet”, Judi McLeod, the editor of CanadaFreePress.com, said “Forget NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and all warnings sent by Edward Snowden. They’ve got nothing on how Net Neutrality will silence you.”

“Someday in the near future when you type in the words “Islamic terrorists” in an Internet post, you will be knocked off the Net and find it all but impossible to climb back on again.”

Do I think the Congress will exercise its oversight responsibilities and stop this tyrannical power grab? No. Do I think our court system will do anything other than bow to precedent set by earlier FCC regulations? Yes.

As a nation founded on and devoted to freedom of speech, I think February 26, 2015 will go down in the history books as the day when that freedom came to an end in America.

Thanks to a National Security Agency we no longer have any privacy regarding anything we say using telephones, the Internet or any other form of communication.

If the Democrat-controlled FCC has its way, the Internet will slow your access and could eliminate access countless sites that provide news and express opinions the federal government finds offensive. That’s what tyrannies do.

Facebook yanks page of 12-year-old conservative who said Obama doesn't love U.S.

On Friday, C.J. Pearson, a 12-year-old conservative from Georgia who posted a viral video supporting Rudy Giuliani, discovered that his personal Facebook page was locked. In an exclusive interview with Examiner.com on Saturday, Pearson said he received a message from someone about 6 a.m. Friday. That's when he learned his account and page had been locked for "suspicious activity."

He jumped through all of Facebook's hoops, but wasn't able to recover his account. So he created a new profile to take its place. His public page was not affected, he said, however, he can no longer administer the page. Fortunately, he said, a friend is helping post links to that page.

As is so often the case in these situations, Facebook did not respond to his requests for help. Nor would they tell him what the alleged suspicious activity was. We reached out to Facebook, but the social media giant has so far refused to respond to our request for comments.

Pearson said he is working on legislation to lower the age of those serving in the state House and Senate. The legislation, which is set to be the subject of a hearing on Monday, would lower the age of House members from 21 to 18, and lower the age of state Senators from 25 to 21. Pearson said he was using Facebook to line up witnesses for the hearing, but Facebook's actions have made that more difficult. He can't read any messages sent to his old profile and the old page doesn't show up.

On Monday, we reported that Pearson posted a video supporting former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. He also minced no words when he said that President Obama doesn't love America.

“I don’t want to be politically correct. I don’t care about being politically correct at this point,” he said. “President Obama, you don’t love America.”

The video has gone viral and as of this writing, has received over 1.2 million views. He has also become something of a celebrity among conservatives who appreciate his candor and his willingness to publicly state with conviction what so many others are afraid to say. Many have said they would love to see the young man run for office, and they may get their wish, as Pearson said he "definitely" has political aspirations and wants to "fight for freedom."

This is not the first time Facebook has blocked conservatives for questionable reasons. In March 2013, for example, Facebook banned Florida blogger Diane Sori for 30 days over something she never posted. As we have reported many times, Facebook has banned conservatives for clicking "like" or simply saying "thank you." Conservative pages have also been targeted and shut down for questionable reasons while other pages have been allowed to flourish. As we reported last May, articles mentioning Islam were falsely flagged as "unsafe" and pages critical of Islam have been removed over false claims of inappropriate material.

Worthwhile reading...

Sums up:

"...Alas, our freedoms aren’t being taken from us by some foreign power with a gun pointed at our collective heads. No, staggeringly, American freedoms are being taken away by the very government a majority of brain-dead voters somehow sent to Washington. What’s worse, the opposition in Congress seems more than willing to capitulate and let the president get away with whatever he does, regardless of what’s in the Constitution, so long as they can stay in power in their little fiefdoms. With Obamacare and what the WSJ dubs the Obamanet, Barack Obama has succeeded in gutting both economic freedom and the freedom of speech in less than six years. Things that largely survived for 220 years… down the drain in six years! The consequences of the mistake that is Barack Obama in the White House will haunt Americans for decades to come, including those who were smart enough not to hand the keys of the greatest kingdom in human history to a petulant man more than willing to lie to get what he wants and a disdain for the very Constitution he swore to uphold."

Amen!