Obama's uses executive order to take over internet
By: Sharry Edwards
Dec 19, 2010

Barack Obama has a "Christmas surprise" for the American people. It's based upon the FCC's self-imposed December 21 deadline to implement new Internet rules.

Via the FCC, Mr. Obama wants to take control of the Internet - YOUR Internet - your ability to contact your friends, your relatives, and your elected representatives in government.

This "stealth" use of new rules and regulations will sneak up on us just before Christmas. Quite frankly, not too many people know about this; or really take the notion seriously, because, after all, we have the 1st Amendment to the U. S. Constitution to protect us. Right? Wrong!

The FCC is ready to add the Internet to its "portfolio" of regulated industries. The Obama Administration wants to take control of the Internet. BEFORE CHRISTMAS! (even though the regulations won't "officially" go into effect until after the holidays. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he has circulated "draft rules" that he says will "preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet." No statement - I call it a bald face lie - reflects the vast gulf between the rhetoric and the reality of Obama Administration policy.

Obama's FCC is ready to steal our Internet freedom by simply declaring it has the "right" to regulate it. Here's the underlying problem for Barack Obama. Internet journalists tend to report the news without coloring it with the brush of "political correctness." They challenge the lies that the Obama Administration puts out that the so-called "mainstream media" simply accept and repeat as the truth.

Congress needs to exercise their Constitutional authority and oversight over the FCC, by insisting that the FCC postpone the implementation of these new regulations until proper Congressional Committee hearings are held to determine whether the Executive Branch has the Constitutional authority to take over the Internet. Three federal judges in three different cases have already ruled that the Internet deserves the same protection under the First Amendment as printed material receives. We must not let the federal government continue to whittle away at our Constitutional freedoms!

We must be prepared to do battle with the intrusive FCC federal regulations that will clamp down on our 1st Amendment rights via the Internet. To protect our free speech rights on the Internet, we must contact every single Member of Congress and let them know they must NOT agree to the upcoming December 21st regulations! Will you do that for yourself and for the rest of us... today - please? This is so important; let me repeat my request so you understand the extreme urgency. Because, historically, when government seizes liberty, it's gone forever.

According to the Washington Times: "With a straight face, Mr. Genachowski suggested that government red tape will increase the 'freedom' of online services that have flourished because bureaucratic busybodies have been blocked from tinkering with the Web. Ordinarily, it would be appropriate at this point to supply an example from the proposed regulations illustrating the problem. Mr. Genachowski's draft document has over 550 footnotes and is stamped 'non-public, for internal use only' to ensure nobody outside the agency sees it until the rules are approved in a scheduled December 21 vote. So much for 'openness'!

Mr. Obama will use the FCC plans to implement control of cyberspace by issuing regulations. He blatantly insists that he has the right to regulate the Internet through the FCC - which regulates the other electronic mediums: radio and television. What Mr. Obama really means is that as long as the American people have unfettered access to the Internet, he cannot continue to spread his propaganda and bald face lies without being challenged, and he will be a one-term visitor at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Make no mistake; Barack Hussein Obama is very determined to undermine free speech by seizing cyber-control Internet free speech; under the disguise of making sure our safety and security are of prime importance. The recent WikiLeaks fiasco has helped him to rationalize this tremendous increase of government control to the American public.

Freedom and openness should continue to be the governing principles of the Internet. That's why Mr. Genachowski's December 21 proposals should be STOPPED by Members of Congress. In fact, both the U. S. Senate and the House of Representatives should make it even clearer that the FCC should STOP trying to expand its REGULATORY EMPIRE and should STOP trying to control our freedom of speech over the internet!

In the administration's zeal to "protect the people," the social progressive zealots in the Obama federal bureaucracy are not averse to writing the rules and regulations like this. It makes a clear statement. It takes away our freedoms on the Internet; but it is all under the claim of "protection."
That's why the proposed FCC Internet rules and regulations - THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE IMPLEMENTED without Congressional legislation being enacted - must be stopped by that Body whose legislative authority has been abridged.

Don't let the Obama Administration give you a government "Merry Christmas" via Internet controls. Send Barack Obama your personal "BAH, HUMBUG!"

Say "Merry Christmas" with a message that STOPS the federal government from crossing that Constitutional line by seizing the Internet. Barrack Hussein Obama blames the Tea Party Revolution, and the results of the 2010 election, on the American conservatives' unfettered access to the Internet. That appears to be the real reason that the Obama Administration authorized the FCC power grab to regulate the Internet. Obama talking heads might refer to regulation as a form of "Net Neutrality," or a cyber-version of the "Fairness Doctrine." But, plain and simple, it is plain, old fashioned, censorship of the views of a majority by a frightened minority who want to silence that majority.

Are you part of the no-longer "silent" majority which believes that the 1st Amendment protects our right to speak our mind, in the public forum of the Internet, or at a Town Hall meeting? Free speech is free. Don't let anyone regulate your right to speak. Get involved. Now. Today.

When it comes to the Internet, bipartisan majorities in Congress have insisted on maintaining a strict hands-off policy whenever the left has proposed legislation to impose censorship through regulation. A federal appeals court confirmed this in April, by striking down the FCC's last attempt to do it. In order for the FCC to take this control, it needs Congress to give it explicit statutory authority to do so. Since they have chosen not to, Mr. Obama intends to just do it himself. The Obama Administration is overstepping its Constitutional boundaries? These proposed regulations prove that!

December 21 is only days away.

Freedom of the Press is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Federal judges have ruled specifically that the Internet has the exact same freedoms. But the Obama Administration is trying to control the Internet... and YOU!

On December 1, with an impending implementation on December 21st, Mr. Genachowski announced to the media that he had circulated his draft rules memo. He said it will "... preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet," adding that the federal government will increase the freedom of online services because, he noted, heavy use in some areas of the Internet slow the "web experience" for everyone sharing the same information superhighway lines.

Even though that may be partially true, the United States government should not dictate to us what we can and cannot do on the Internet. Period.

Although the federal judiciary has extended First Amendment protection to the Internet, Barack Obama believes that he has the executive authority, WITHOUT legislation enacted by Congress, to arbitrarily regulate who uses cyberspace and what access they may enjoy, based entirely on the content of the material that they wish to publish there. If this isn't a violation of our basic rights as Americans, I do not know what is!

SOURCE: http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=190441

'Net Neutrality': Internet Freedom without Gatekeepers - Implications of the FCC Ruling
by Tim Karr
January 2, 2011
Global Research / Savetheinternet.com

On December 21, 2010 FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski gave AT&T a decision that was gift-wrapped for the holiday season. By a 3-to-2 vote, the FCC passed a rule that, in the chairman’s words, “protects Internet freedom.”

If only that were true.

After a year of promises to deliver on President Obama's pledge to protect Net Neutrality, this chairman has pushed through a rule that favors the very industry his FCC is supposed to regulate, leaving Internet users with few protections and putting the future of the open Internet in peril.

The chairman chose to ignore the voices of more than 2 million people who have urged Washington to support real and lasting Net Neutrality protections. His rule, for the first time in history, allows discrimination over the mobile Internet, paving the way for widespread industry abuses.

Now, the chairman is trying to spin the media that this toothless decision is a win for Obama and for Internet users. Free Press and our allies are not going to let him get away with that.

The FCC rule doesn't do enough to stop the phone and cable companies from dividing the Internet into fast and slow lanes. It doesn't stop them from splitting the Internet into two - one Internet for those who can pay to access special sites and services, and another neglected network for the rest of us.

The rule fails miserably to protect wireless users from discrimination, a prospect that's especially troubling for African American and Latino communities who increasingly access the Internet via mobile devices.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) underscored this point. "Although the new rules bar fixed broadband Internet providers from 'unreasonable discrimination' against Web traffic," she said on Wednesday. "They exempt mobile broadband providers - leaving millions without critical consumer protections and leading to a fractured Internet."

The FCC vote is a textbook example of industry capture of a federal agency. Chairman Genachowski gave AT&T veto power over this rule. What he's now characterizing as a "reasonable compromise" looks, to anyone who compares his order to his earlier promises, as a near total capitulation to industry.

By failing to protect the open Internet, Genachowski has put at risk one of the essential needs of any healthy democracy: our right to freely access information, engage in political discourse and govern ourselves.

We’d be lying if we didn’t tell you that this vote was a major setback. But this bad rule is not the end of the story. Free Press and our many allies are going to keep fighting to secure your right to an Internet without gatekeepers.

SOURCE: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22610

MPAA Takes A Dozen Torrent Sites Offline
Jan 27, 2011

The MPAA has managed to take a dozen torrent sites offline in the United States, with help from Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN. The 12 torrent sites – which remain anonymous – were pulled offline by their hosting companies following complaints from the two organizations. What effect this ‘massive’ takedown operation will have on the BitTorrent ecosystem is yet to be seen, but thus far there are no reports of ‘missing’ torrent sites.

100,000 P2P Users Sued in US Mass Lawsuits
Jan 30, 2011

The avalanche of copyright infringement lawsuits in the United States, mainly against BitTorrent users, are about to hit a dubious milestone. In total 99,924 defendants have been sued in the last 12 months, and new cases are being filed at a rapid rate. Adult companies in particular have have embraced the profitable pay-up-or-else scheme where tens of millions of dollars are at stake.

More:
SOURCE: http://torrentfreak.com/

TRANCOSO wrote:MPAA Takes A Dozen Torrent Sites Offline
Jan 27, 2011

The MPAA has managed to take a dozen torrent sites offline in the United States, with help from Dutch anti-piracy outfit BREIN. The 12 torrent sites – which remain anonymous – were pulled offline by their hosting companies following complaints from the two organizations. What effect this ‘massive’ takedown operation will have on the BitTorrent ecosystem is yet to be seen, but thus far there are no reports of ‘missing’ torrent sites.

More:
SOURCE: http://torrentfreak.com/

Carol, is Channel 131 still online at your end?

It was last week. I'm not getting anything right now... This is where I watch my TV programs and the latest movies.

www.ch131.com
www.hulu.com
www.syfy.com Jurassic Park III is on tonight
My favorite series is Eureka http://www.syfy.com//rewind/eureka/

Carol wrote:It was last week. I'm not getting anything right now... This is where I watch my TV programs and the latest movies.

www.ch131.com
www.hulu.com
www.syfy.com

Same here.

Hulu doesn't work outside the US, Syfy ditto!

Death Of The Internet - Rockefeller: Internet is 'Number One National Hazard'

According to the great-grandson John D. Rockefeller, nephew of banker David Rockefeller, and former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller the internet represents a serious threat to national security. Rockefeller is not alone in this assessment. His belief that the internet is the "number one national hazard" to national security is shared by the former Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell and Obama's current director Admiral Dennis C. Blair.

"It really almost makes you ask the question would it have been better if we had never invented the internet," Rockefeller mused during the confirmation hearing of Gary Locke (see video), Obama's choice for Commerce Secretary. He then cites a dubious figure of three million cyber "attacks" launched against the Department of Defense every day. "Everybody is attacked, anybody can do it. People say, well it's China and Russia, but there could be some kid in Latvia doing the same thing."

Jay Rockefeller's comments reveal an astounding degree of ignorance - or if not ignorance, outright propaganda. Since the September 11, 2001, attacks the government has cranked up the fear quotient in regard to cyber attacks and so-called cyber terrorism, a virtually non-existent threat except in the minds security experts and politicians. In the years since the attacks, not one real instance of real cyberterrorism has been recorded.

"Cyberattacks on critical components of the national infrastructure are not uncommon, but they have not been conducted by terrorists and have not sought to inflict the kind of damage that would qualify as cyberterrorism," writes Gabriel Weimann, author of Terror on the Internet. "Nuclear weapons and other sensitive military systems, as well as the computer systems of the CIA and FBI, are 'air-gapped,' making them inaccessible to outside hackers. Systems in the private sector tend to be less well protected, but they are far from defenseless, and nightmarish tales of their vulnerability tend to be largely apocryphal."

"Psychological, political, and economic forces have combined to promote the fear of cyberterrorism," Weimann continues. "From a psychological perspective, two of the greatest fears of modern time are combined in the term 'cyberterrorism.' The fear of random, violent victimization blends well with the distrust and outright fear of computer technology."

"The sky is not falling, and cyber-weapons seem to be of limited value in attacking national power or intimidating citizens," notes James Lewis of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Such a threat is overblown, Lewis explains. He notes that "a brief review suggests that while many computer networks remain very vulnerable to attack, few critical infrastructures are equally vulnerable." In other words, Rockefeller's example of a kid in Latvia with a laptop posing a serious "hazard" to national security is little more than sensationalistic propaganda.

So-called cyber terrorists are far less of a threat than government. China and Australia have recently imposed draconian censorship on internet freedom. Brazil, Denmark, Canada, Finland, Ireland , Italy, Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and many other countries also impose nominal censorship on internet freedom. Urgent calls to restrict the medium in various ways through legislation and government action have increased over the last few years (for more detail, see Internet Censorship: A Comparative Study).

However, the real threat to internet freedom is currently posed by IT and ISP corporations, not the government.

As Alex Jones explained last June, large corporate ISPs are now in the process of imposing bandwidth caps and routing traffic over their networks and blocking certain targeted websites. For instance, in 2005 AOL Time-Warner was caught blocking access to all of Jones' flagship websites across the entire United States. Other instances of outright censorship include the UK ISP Tiscali blocking subscribers from reaching material on the 7/7 London bombings and Google's continued and habitual censorship of 9/11 material and Alex Jones' films on the ever-popular YouTube. There are many other instances as well.

SOURCE: http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2010/06/death-internet

TRANCOSO wrote:

Carol wrote:It was last week. I'm not getting anything right now... This is where I watch my TV programs and the latest movies.

www.ch131.com
www.hulu.com
www.syfy.com

Same here.

Hulu doesn't work outside the US, Syfy ditto!

It's BACK online

I must recognize I did'nt understand it all but for those who do it may be usefull

Get Internet Access When Your Government Shuts It Down
Does your government have an Internet kill-switch? Read our guide to Guerrilla Networking and be prepared for when the lines get cut.

By Patrick Miller, David Daw, PCWorld Jan 29, 2011

http://www.pcworld.com/article/218155/get_internet_access_when_your_government_shuts_it_down.html

These days, no popular movement goes without an Internet presence of some kind, whether it's organizing on Facebook or spreading the word through Twitter. And as we've seen in Egypt, that means that your Internet connection can be the first to go. Whether you're trying to check in with your family, contact your friends, or simply spread the word, here are a few ways to build some basic network connectivity when you can't rely on your cellular or landline Internet connections.
Do-It-Yourself Internet With Ad-Hoc Wi-Fi

Even if you've managed to find an Internet connection for yourself, it won't be that helpful in reaching out to your fellow locals if they can't get online to find you. If you're trying to coordinate a group of people in your area and can't rely on an Internet connection, cell phones, or SMS, your best bet could be a wireless mesh network of sorts--essentially, a distributed network of wireless networking devices that can all find each other and communicate with each other. Even if none of those devices have a working Internet connection, they can still find each other, which, if your network covers the city you're in, might be all you need. At the moment, wireless mesh networking isn't really anywhere close to market-ready, though we have seen an implementation of the 802.11s draft standard, which extends the 802.11 Wi-Fi standard to include wireless mesh networking, in the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) XO laptop.

However, a prepared guerrilla networker with a handful of PCs could make good use of Daihinia ($25, 30-day free trial), an app that piggybacks on your Wi-Fi adapter driver to turn your normal ad-hoc Wi-Fi network into a multihop ad-hoc network (disclaimer: we haven't tried this ourselves yet), meaning that instead of requiring each device on the network to be within range of the original access point, you simply need to be within range of a device on the network that has Daihinia installed, effectively allowing you to add a wireless mesh layer to your ad-hoc network.

Advanced freedom fighters can set up a portal Web page on their network that explains the way the setup works, with Daihinia instructions and a local download link so they can spread the network even further. Lastly, just add a Bonjour-compatible chat client like Pidgin or iChat, and you'll be able to talk to your neighbors across the city without needing an Internet connection.
Back to Basics

Remember when you stashed your old modems in the closet because you thought you might need them some day? In the event of a total communications blackout--as we're seeing in Egypt, for example--you'll be glad you did. Older and simpler tools, like dial-up Internet or even ham radio, could still work, since these "abandoned" tech avenues aren't being policed nearly as hard.

In order to get around the total shutdown of all of the ISPs within Egypt, several international ISPs are offering dial-up access to the Internet to get protesters online, since phone service is still operational. It's slow, but it still works--the hard part is getting the access numbers without an Internet connection to find them.

Unfortunately, such dial-up numbers can also be fairly easily shut down by the Egyptian government, so you could also try returning to FidoNet--a distributed networking system for BBSes that was popular in the 1980s. FidoNet is limited to sending only simple text messages, and it's slow, but it has two virtues: Users connect asynchronously, so the network traffic is harder to track, and any user can act as the server, which means that even if the government shuts down one number in the network, another one can quickly pop up to take its place.

You could also take inspiration from groups that are working to create an ad-hoc communications network into and out of Egypt using Ham Radio, since the signals are rarely tracked and extremely hard to shut down or block. Most of these efforts are still getting off the ground, but hackers are already cobbling together ways to make it a viable form of communication into and out of the country.
Always Be Prepared

In the land of no Internet connection, the man with dial-up is king. Here are a few gadgets that you could use to prepare for the day they cut the lines.

Given enough time and preparation, your ham radio networks could even be adapted into your own ad-hoc network using Packet Radio, a radio communications protocol that you can use to create simple long-distance wireless networks to transfer text and other messages between computers. Packet Radio is rather slow and not particularly popular (don't try to stream any videos with this, now), but it's exactly the kind of networking device that would fly under the radar.

In response to the crisis in Egypt, nerds everywhere have risen to call for new and exciting tools for use in the next government-mandated shutdown. Bre Pettis, founder of the hackerspace NYC Resistor and creator of the Makerbot 3D printer, has called for "Apps for the Appocalypse," including a quick and easy way to set up chats on a local network so you can talk with your friends and neighbors in an emergency even without access to the Internet. If his comments are any indication, Appocalypse apps may be headed your way soon.

Tons of cool tech are also just waiting to be retrofitted for these purposes. David Dart's Pirate Box is a one-step local network in a box originally conceived for file sharing and local P2P purposes, but it wouldn't take much work to adapt the Pirate Box as a local networking tool able to communicate with other pirate boxes to form a compact, mobile set of local networks in the event of an Internet shutdown.

Whether you're in Egypt or Eagle Rock, you rely on your Internet access to stay in touch with friends and family, get your news, and find information you need. (And read PCWorld, of course.) Hopefully with these apps, tools, and techniques, you won't have to worry about anyone--even your government--keeping you from doing just that.

Love Always
mudra

[b]Internet ‘Kill Switch’ Legislation Back in Play
January 28, 2011[/b]

Legislation granting the president internet-killing powers is to be re-introduced soon to a Senate committee, the proposal’s chief sponsor told Wired.com on Friday.

The resurgence of the so-called “kill switch” legislation came the same day Egyptians faced an internet blackout designed to counter massive demonstrations in that country.

The bill, which has bipartisan support, is being floated by Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican ranking member on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The proposed legislation, which Collins said would not give the president the same power Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak is exercising to quell dissent, sailed through the Homeland Security Committee in December but expired with the new Congress weeks later.

The bill is designed to protect against “significant” cyber threats before they cause damage, Collins said.

“My legislation would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency,” Collins said in an e-mail Friday. “It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat.”

The timing of when the legislation would be re-introduced was not immediately clear, as kinks to it are being worked out.

An aide to the Homeland Security committee described the bill as one that does not mandate the shuttering of the entire internet. Instead, it would authorize the president to demand turning off access to so-called “critical infrastructure” where necessary.

An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack.

What’s unclear, however, is how the government would have any idea when a cyber attack was imminent or why the operator wouldn’t shutter itself if it detected a looming attack.

About two dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, were skeptical enough to file an open letter opposing the idea. They are concerned that the measure, if it became law, might be used to censor the internet.

“It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights,” (.pdf) the groups wrote last year to Congress.

A congressional white paper (.pdf) on the measure said the proposal prohibits the government from targeting websites for censorship “based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.”

Oddly, that’s exactly the same language in the Patriot Act used to test whether the government can wiretap or investigate a person based on their political beliefs or statements.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/01/kill-switch-legislation/

Love Always
mudra

For those of us who may not be able to figure all that out, I suggest getting or keeping a land line and asking friends family and neighbors to keep theirs. Also, write the phone numbers down in a notebook, as keeping the number in a mobile phone won't help if you can't charge the phone. Land lines work in a a power failure. Also, phone handsets operating on battery will not be able to charge if there is no electricity. Get a regular old phone that is hardwired just in case. Make sure it works and put it in the closet. You might be glad you have it some day, let's hope not, right?

House votes to overturn 'net neutrality' rules
Saturday, April 9, 2011

The US House of Representatives voted on Friday to overturn "net neutrality" rules aimed at ensuring an open Internet, setting the stage for a clash with the Senate and President Barack Obama.

The House voted 240-179 in favor of a Republican-backed resolution that seeks to block the rules approved by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The House vote went almost entirely along party lines although six Democrats joined the Republicans in voting for the resolution and two Republicans opposed it.

The five-member, Democratic-controlled FCC, in a vote split on party lines, agreed in December to the rules aimed at safeguarding "network neutrality" - the principle that lawful Web traffic should be treated equally.

Supporters have argued that the rules are needed to ensure an open Internet but opponents have decried them as unnecessary government intervention.

The Senate, where Democrats are in the majority, is unlikely to pass a measure similar to that approved by the House and the White House has threatened a veto if the resolution reaches President Obama's desk.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, a Republican from Virginia, welcomed the House's approval of the resolution calling it "an important step to bring down the FCC's harmful and partisan plan to regulate the Internet."

"These regulations give the government unwarranted authority to control broadband networks which ultimately will hinder a thriving industry, harm competition and stifle innovation," Cantor said.

"Under Republican leadership, the House is focusing on ending anti-growth government regulations," he said.

Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi of California said the Republican-backed resolution "takes us in the wrong direction - revoking basic consumer protections, eliminating competition, and shutting off outlets of innovation."

Senator Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat from West Virginia, expressed disappointment with the House move saying "Americans want the Internet to remain free and open and the FCC's net neutrality rules provided just that."

The rules are a balancing act by the FCC between support for consumers and the cable and telephone companies that are the main Internet service providers in the United States.

The rules would prevent fixed broadband providers from blocking lawful content, applications or services, providing their own video content at a faster speed, for example, than that of a rival.

Wireless providers may not block access to lawful websites or applications that compete directly with their own voice or video telephony services but they could potentially block other applications or services.

Fixed broadband providers can also charge consumers according to usage, a metered pricing practice already used by some wireless carriers.

US telecom carrier Verizon Communications filed a legal challenge to the FCC's rules in January but a federal appeals court threw it out this week on the grounds that it was "premature" because the FCC has not yet published the rules in the Federal Register.

SOURCE: http://www.activistpost.com/2011/04/house-votes-to-overturn-net-neutrality.html