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

[Wilikon]

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


Republican senators Mike Lee, Ben Sasse, and Rand Paul have all been high profile opponents of the Obama administrations current plan to regulate the internet -- in particular, Lee has called the regulation a government "takeover" of the internet and says it amounts to a "a massive tax increase on the middle class, being passed in the dead of night without the American public really being made aware of what is going on.”

And when Lee says that the American public isn't aware of what's going on, that is in no way hyperbole. FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has emerged as a hero for those opposed to the regulation because Pai has been taking to the airwaves decrying the fact that the public is not allowed to see 332 pages of proposed internet regulation before they are potentially passed. Pai's crusade to make the proposed regulations public is the theme of the the latest ad from Protect Internet Freedom:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2mzMcRPO2I

[darkota]

If something this ridiculous was actually passed, I expect there would be major backlash, with some even going so far as to form a decentralized internet, away from governmental control. Things like these are what makes me question what the hell is going on...

[Wilikon]

If something this ridiculous was actually passed, I expect there would be major backlash, with some even going so far as to form a decentralized internet, away from governmental control. Things like these are what makes me question what the hell is going on...

The game theory in this case is simple: either nothing stated in this thread is true and I am a fool, or there was good (evil) reasons for the FCC not to make those 332 pages known to the public before their votes... And we are all fools. If true these laws will consolidate more ISP power to already established big companies and starve young entrepreneurs under mountains of new regulations, giving less choices to consumers. Do not forget google will be a major isp provider everywhere in the future.

I hope I am wrong and nothing that political will take place. But why the secrecy?

[Wilikon]

Republican lawmakers investigate White House net neutrality push

Republicans want to know whether the Obama administration influenced the FCC's proposal



WASHINGTON - Congressional Republicans are demanding to know how much the White House influenced the Federal Communications Commission while the agency crafted net neutrality rules.

The FCC has until Monday afternoon to produce unredacted email messages, focused on net neutrality rules, between FCC staff and officials with the Obama administration, U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz said in a letter to the FCC Friday. The Utah Republican is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Chaffetz's committee is "investigating the potential involvement of the White House" in the creation of proposed net neutrality rules that the FCC is scheduled to vote on next Thursday, he said in the letter. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will propose regulations that would reclassify broadband as a regulated telecommunications service instead of a lightly regulated information service.

An FCC spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to a request for a comment on Chaffetz's letter.

Several congressional Republicans have accused the White House of improperly influencing the FCC net-neutrality rule-making process, after Obama called on the agency to reclassify broadband as a regulated public utility in November. Wheeler appeared to change his position and embrace that idea after the president urged the independent agency to do so, critics have said.

But U.S. presidential administrations have repeatedly weighed in on FCC proceedings during the past 30-plus years, net neutrality advocate Public Knowledge has noted.

Chaffetz's letter to the FCC came just two days after Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee told Wheeler they were expanding an investigation into agency rule-making processes.

The Energy and Commerce Committee's probe covers a wide range of FCC process concerns beyond net neutrality, but new reports detailing White House contact with the FCC on net neutrality raise "additional concerns about whether the commission is managing its affairs with the independence and openness required by its mandate," committee leaders said in a Wednesday letter to Wheeler.

Republican concerns about Obama administration influence over the FCC were fueled by a Feb. 4 Wall Street Journal report saying the White House last year had set up a "parallel version of the FCC" to push for regulation of broadband providers.

Chaffetz's letter asks for specific email messages sent by Obama administration officials to the FCC in April. On Friday, Vice.com published an exchange between administration officials and FCC staff that the website obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.


http://www.computerworld.com/article/2886968/republican-lawmakers-investigate-white-house-net-neutrality-push.html

[BitMos]

do what ever you want, we have moved on.

[Wilikon]

Republican FCC Commissioners Ask Wheeler To Delay Net Neutrality Vote, Release Proposal



Three days before the Federal Communications Commission is scheduled to vote on the most significant Internet regulations in history, two commissioners are asking Chairman Tom Wheeler to delay the vote and release his proposal to the public.


http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/23/republican-fcc-commissioners-ask-wheeler-to-delay-net-neutrality-vote-release-proposal/

[Wilikon]

From Internet to Obamanet

BlackBerry and AT&T are already making moves that could exploit new ‘utility’ regulations.



Critics of President Obama’s “net neutrality” plan call it ObamaCare for the Internet.

That’s unfair to ObamaCare.

Both ObamaCare and “Obamanet” submit huge industries to complex regulations. Their supporters say the new rules had to be passed before anyone could read them. But at least ObamaCare claimed it would solve long-standing problems. 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. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.

No one, including the bullied FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, thought the agency would go this far. The big politicization came when President Obama in November demanded that the supposedly independent FCC apply the agency’s most extreme regulation to the Internet. A recent page-one Wall Street Journal story headlined “Net Neutrality: How White House Thwarted FCC Chief” documented “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House . . . acting as a parallel version of the FCC itself.”

Congress is demanding details of this interference. In the early 1980s, a congressional investigation blasted President Reagan for telling his FCC chairman his view of regulations about television reruns. “I believe it is imperative for the integrity of all regulatory processes that the president unequivocally declare that he will express no view in the matter and that he will do nothing to intervene in the work of the FCC,” said Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat.

Mr. Obama’s role raises legal as well as political questions. Those harmed by the new rules could argue in court that political pressure made the agency’s actions “arbitrary and capricious.”

The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret, but Mr. Wheeler says they will subject the Internet to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC oversaw Ma Bell.

Title II authorizes the commission to decide what “charges” and “practices” are “just and reasonable”—an enormous amount of discretion. Former FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell has found 290 federal appeals court opinions on this section and more than 1,700 FCC administrative interpretations.

Defenders of the Obama plan claim that there will be regulatory “forbearance,” though not from the just-and-reasonable test. They also promise not to regulate prices, a pledge that Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai has called “flat-out false.” He added: “The only limit on the FCC’s discretion to regulate rates is its own determination of whether rates are ‘just and reasonable,’ which isn’t much of a restriction at all.”

The Supreme Court has ruled that if the FCC applies Title II to the Internet, all uses of telecommunications will have to pass the “just and reasonable” test. Bureaucrats can review the fairness of Google ’s search results, Facebook ’s news feeds and news sites’ links to one another and to advertisers. BlackBerry is already lobbying the FCC to force Apple and Netflix to offer apps for BlackBerry’s unpopular phones. Bureaucrats will oversee peering, content-delivery networks and other parts of the interconnected network that enables everything from Netflix and YouTube to security drones and online surgery.

Supporters of Obamanet describe it as a counter to the broadband duopoly of cable and telecom companies. In reality, it gives duopolists another tool to block competition. Utility regulations let dominant companies complain that innovations from upstarts fail the “just and reasonable” test—as truly disruptive innovations often do.

AT&T has decades of experience leveraging FCC regulations to stop competition. Last week AT&T announced a high-speed broadband plan that charges an extra $29 a month to people who don’t want to be tracked for online advertising. New competitor Google Fiber can offer low-cost broadband only because it also earns revenues from online advertising. In other words, AT&T has already built a case against Google Fiber that Google’s cross-subsidization from advertising is not “just and reasonable.”

Utility regulation was designed to maintain the status quo, and it succeeds. This is why the railroads, Ma Bell and the local water monopoly were never known for innovation. The Internet was different because its technologies, business models and creativity were permissionless.

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.



http://www.wsj.com/articles/l-gordon-crovitz-from-internet-to-obamanet-1424644324

[Wilikon]

Obama’s Move To Regulate Internet Has Activists’ ‘Fingerprints All Over It’




The Obama White House has worked directly with online activists to pressure the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the internet. The Commission is expected to vote on the president’s “net neutrality” policy on Thursday.

According to White House visitor logs, on September 23, 2014, Obama senior internet advisor David Edelman met with 30 netroots activists and executives from Spitfire Strategies. Spitfire is a public relations firm that received over $2 million from the Ford Foundation since 2009 to create PR and media strategy relating to net neutrality.

During the hour-long meeting, the Obama White House appears to have collaborated with the netroots activists and PR media professionals to create the notion that the public truly wants Title II regulation applied to the internet. The activists have even celebrated President Obama’s loyalty to their cause in emails to their factions of supporters.

According to the White House visitors logs, participants at the meeting included representatives from the Free Press, Fight for the Future, Demand Progress, Daily Kos, Public Knowledge and several others. Individual meeting attendees also included PR, media and campaign strategists Michael Khoo, Karley Kranich and Cheryl Leanza from Spitfire Strategies and A Learned Hand, as well as Martha Allen with The Women’s Institute for Freedom of the Press.

Six weeks later in November, Obama announced his Title II internet regulation proposal in a video statement. The president’s video used an ample amount of the activists’ messaging, including a fake “buffering” gag that showed viewers the well-known “site loading” circular animation.



http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/23/obamas-move-to-regulate-internet-has-activists-fingerprints-all-over-it/

[Wilikon]

ØbamaNet

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamas-regs-will-make-internet-slow-as-in-europe-warn-fcc-fec-commissioners/article/2560567

[Wilikon]

How the FCC could use an obscure Internet power to change the pay-TV market




In a few days, the Federal Communications Commission will vote on the government's strict new net neutrality rules for Internet providers. And while the proposed regulations are mainly focused on whether companies like Comcast can block or slow Web sites, a small piece of the rules could give the government wider authority over television programming — and by extension, your TV experience. Here's how.

The FCC has a mission: To promote the rapid deployment of high-speed Internet. Under this mission, codified in Section 706 of the Communications Act, it's seen fit to knock down what it sees as barriers to the rollout of broadband. The FCC's net neutrality rules partly lean on this power. And it's also what the agency is using to try to knock down state laws that prevent cities from selling their own Internet service.

Now, some Washington lobbyists are beginning to argue that this mission doesn't just cover the Internet. Advocates for pay-TV providers are saying the FCC should use Section 706 to act more aggressively against the companies that produce TV content. Why? Because the pay-TV providers think the content producers are charging them too much for programming — and because programming costs eat into the budget for building, say, cable broadband, what hurts pay-TV providers could hurt the spread of broadband.

In short, if cable companies can convincingly argue that their costs of buying programming are effectively a barrier to broadband deployment, that's a case for federal intervention.

It's a complicated line of reasoning, so let's look at an example. Think of Google Fiber, which is trying to compete with large cable companies around the country. It has said that the biggest impediment to further network buildouts isn't the cost of infrastructure, or getting permission from cities to tear up streets. Instead, what holds Google back the most is having to pay programming networks for video content as part of the bundle it offers to consumers. Google Fiber has said that in some markets, it pays programmers twice what larger, more established cable companies pay for content.

So the pitch from pay-TV providers to the FCC is this: If you really care about broadband deployment, you should make it so we don't have to pay programmers quite so much — then we'll be able to funnel more money into rolling out high-speed Internet.

"If money is extracted from video providers by mega-content companies for more bundling and higher programming fees, that's less money available for broadband expansion," said Matthew Polka, chief executive of the American Cable Association.

Other lobbyists are making the same argument, too.

"We think the market is broken in video," said Chip Pickering, the chief executive of COMPTEL, a trade association for small and competitive communications companies. "The prices are so high, it becomes an impediment to deploying new networks."

Some at the FCC appear receptive to this message. Mignon Clyburn, a Democratic FCC commissioner, said Thursday that the FCC should do more to resolve disputes between pay-TV providers and programming networks. Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the FCC, has said previously that he's interested in slowing the rise of some of these programming fees.

If the FCC someday decides that yes, the cost of TV programming is hurting the rollout of broadband, it's not that big a leap to regulatory action. Those actions could have powerful implications for what you pay your cable provider, among other things.

The FCC declined to comment.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/02/24/you-thought-net-neutrality-was-about-the-internet-but-its-also-about-pay-tv/

[Wilikon]

FCC Drama: Democratic FCC commissioner balks at net neutrality rules



A Democrat on the Federal Communications Commission wants to narrow the scope of new net neutrality rules that are set for a vote on Thursday, The Hill has learned.

Mignon Clyburn, one of three Democrats on the FCC, has asked Chairman Tom Wheeler to roll back some of the restrictions before the full commission votes on them, FCC officials said.

The request — which Wheeler has yet to respond to — puts the chairman in the awkward position of having to either roll back his proposals, or defend the tough rules and convince Clyburn to back down.
It’s an ironic spot for Wheeler, who for months was considered to be favoring weaker rules than those pushed for by his fellow Democrats, before he reversed himself about backing tougher restrictions on Internet service providers.

Wheeler will need the votes of both Clyburn and Democratic Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel to pass the rules since the two Republicans on the commission are expected to vote against anything he proposes. 

Clyburn’s changes would leave in place the central and most controversial component of Wheeler’s rules — the notion that broadband Internet service should be reclassified so that it can be treated as a “telecommunications” service under Title II of the Communications Act, similar to utilities like phone lines.

Proponents of net neutrality have said that move is the surest way to prevent Internet service providers from interfering with people’s access to the Web.

However, she wants to eliminate a new legal category of “broadband subscriber access services,” which was created as an additional point of legal authority for the FCC to monitor the ways that companies hand off traffic on the back end of the Internet.

Those deals, known as “interconnection” arrangements, became a point of contention last year, when Netflix accused Comcast and other companies of erecting “Internet tolls” before easily passing Web traffic from one network to another.

The initial plan sought by Wheeler would allow the FCC to investigate and take action against deals that are “not just and reasonable,” according to a fact sheet released by the FCC earlier this month.

Eliminating the new legal category could make it trickier for the FCC to police those arrangements, said the FCC officials, who were granted anonymity in order to speak freely about the ongoing negotiations.

Other FCC officials have previously said that the broader act of reclassifying broadband Internet service would, in and of itself, give the commission enough powers to oversee interconnection deals. That opinion has been backed up by lawyers at Google, among others, who made the argument to FCC officials last week.

Clyburn’s changes also would replace a new standard for Internet service providers’ conduct, which was meant to act as a catchall rule for any future behavior that might abuse consumers. That standard would be swapped out with potentially narrower language from 2010 rules that prevented “unreasonable discrimination.” A federal court tossed out those 2010 rules early last year, setting the stage for the FCC to write new rules.

The full text of the rules will not be revealed to the public until after the FCC’s vote on Thursday morning.

Clyburn declined to discuss specific changes she was supporting on Tuesday.

“This is a process that is an interaction with all five members of the commission and their offices,” she said after remarks at a policy forum hosted by Comptel, a trade group.

“I will just say that I am attempting to strike a balance and whatever you hear, whether it’s accurate or not, is a reflection of my enthusiastic willingness to do so.”

In a speech at the Federal Communications Bar Association last week, the commissioner said that she was “pleased” with the initial draft but also hinted that she might need some fixes to strike that balance between “strong” protections for consumers and “clarity” for investors.

“Some have expressed concerns about allowing private rights of action in court, failing to consider the impact on smaller [Internet service providers], that including interconnection goes too far or that the case-by-case approach does not go far enough and that the new conduct rule may not be as strong as the previous unreasonable discrimination rule,” she said.

The requested changes come as FCC lawyers are spending hours poring over the text of the rules.

In keeping with FCC procedural rules, the four other commissioners outside of Wheeler’s office got their first look at the rules just two and a half weeks ago. Now they are scrambling to make edits ahead of the vote on Thursday morning.



http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/233626-fcc-dem-wants-last-minute-changes-to-net-neutrality-rules

[Wilikon]

Video: Net neutrality expert doesn’t seem to know much about net neutrality

The subject of Net Neutrality is a complex one. The plan to regulate internet service providers as public utilities, and impose new standards for internet speed and pricing, often confuses even public policy professionals. With the FCC set to vote on a proposal to create a public utility out of internet service providers in the coming days, this subject is becoming a more urgent one.

While the general public can be forgiven for not fully grasping all the complexities of the subject of Net Neutrality, web entrepreneurs should perhaps be well-versed enough on the subject to be able to avoid an embarrassing meltdown under the withering assault of a single follow-up question from a journalist. That standard is apparently too high for Tumblr founder and CEO David Karp. In an appearance on CNBC on Tuesday, the supposed Net Neutrality expert became paralyzed with confusion when reporter and host Rebecca Quick asked him one too many questions… which, by the way, was a grand total of two questions (at the 0:50 second mark):

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000356959

Quick observed that the fundamental objection to plans that would impose federal regulation and mandates on internet providers rests on the claim that these expensive “pipes” required a significant amount of capital investment to construct. If you were to impose regulations on these companies, it would no longer be profitable to make those investments, and internet innovation will stagnate.

“It’s just not true,” Karp said. “It’s just been disproven.” He added that the busting of the “near-monopoly situation” that characterizes the current market for internet providers will foster even more competition.

“You have a monopoly because it’s really expensive to build the pipe,” Quick noted, “so you have not had multiple people who will build pipes to the door.”

With this question, Karp adopted an expression akin to that of Robert Oppenheimer witnessing the splitting of the atom over the Trinity test site. The look of exquisite awe and terror indicated the extent to which Karp was out of his depth, and he admitted as much after a series of “ums” and “ahs.”

“I confess, not my area of expertise,” Karp finally conceded. He was quickly rescued by the rest of the CNBC panel, but that was a display of kindness that was perhaps unwarranted. Of course, this was not Karp’s area of expertise. He is the creator of a successful online firm that utilizes the infrastructure that other massive, technologically sophisticated communications companies have developed and constructed. As such, his advocacy on this issue would obviously fail to reflect their concerns, but he should at least be able to summarize them with reasonable proficiency.

This episode exposes a real plague that is subtly eroding the standard of discourse in America: The value those who referee political discourse place on obstinacy.

The mark of a proficient debater is the ability to summarize the opposition’s arguments so that someone who holds those views would not take issue with the disputant’s characterization. Only then can an argument be refuted in a manner that is comprehensive enough so that minds open and compelling points might be internalized. Failing to charitably characterize your opponents’ views ensures that your argument will be quickly dismissed, but the artistry of argumentation is undervalued today. The slaying of straw men and the rejection of “false choices,” none of which resemble real choices, are the rhetorical weapons of choice for the modern debater.

Nothing is so highly valued as a zinger or a quip that “destroys” your adversary. And those characterizations are often bestowed on the debater post hoc and by arbiters who are already sympathetic to their position. They are not objective assessments of someone’s performance in a debate as they are efforts to legitimize their substandard presentation after the fact.

Some kudos is due to Karp for having the courage to admit his lack of expertise on the subject upon which he was asked to opine. The temptation to ramble on in an effort to hide his ignorance must have been alluring, and his decision to resist that enticement is laudable. But it would serve much of the political class well to relearn the simple lesson that one must understand the positions their opponents hold before they go about attacking them.



http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/24/video-net-neutrality-expert-doesnt-seem-to-know-much-about-net-neutrality/

[Wilikon]

FLASHBACK: HILLARY CLINTON SAYS INTERNET NEWS NEEDS 'RETHINK'

Drudge Report ^ | 9/25/05 | Matt Drudge
Posted on 9/25/2005, 5:29:17 PM by wagglebee




China on Sunday imposed new media restrictions designed to limit the news and other information available to Internet users, sharply restricting the scope of content that can be posted on Web sites.

Hillary Rodham Clinton said IN 1998 during a meeting with reporters said that "we are all going to have to rethink how we deal with" the Internet because of the handling of White House sex scandal stories on Web sites.

Clinton was asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, after the DRUDGE REPORT made headlines with coverage of her husband's affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values ... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said.

Hillary Clinton Continued:

"I don't have any clue about what we're going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically -- I don't have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I'm a big pro-balance person. That's why I love the founders -- checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be -- political, economic, technological --out of balance, you've got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people's rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we're going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to --"

REPORTER: Sounds like you favor regulation.

MRS. CLINTON: Bill, I don't know what -- that's why I said I don't know what I'm in favor of. And I don't know enough to know what to be in favor of, because I think it's one of those new issues we've got to address. We've got to see whether our existing laws protect people's right of privacy, protect them against defamation. And if they can, how do you do that when you can press a button and you can't take it back. So I think we have to tread carefully.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
We know what to expect from president clinton regarding the freedom of speech on the internet... Net neutrality could be phase one. They need to vote on it before anyone can read it.

[Wilikon]

FCC Finally Dumps 400-Page Net Neutrality Plan – and Here’s Why It Says It’s So Long

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2015/db0312/FCC-15-24A1.pdf

The FCC released its final 400-page plan Thursday that outlines the new internet rules and regulations approved by the five commissioners February 26. The length of the document, according to one senior FCC official, is to make sure that the court has enough information in front of it “if and when” the decision winds up in court.

While explaining that, for years, Republican and Democratic chairmen of the FCC have agreed the Internet should remain open, the two sides have mostly disagreed on how to legally enforce such a policy.

“The chairman’s goal here is to put effective, enforceable internet rules in place once and for all and to do that they to be sustained legally,” the official, who was speaking on background, told reporters Thursday.

“That means, for example, we’ve got 4 million comments, a lot of very learned and thoughtful points of view clashing in front of us and we want to take the time and pages as it were to address important contentions about how the rules should be shaped, what they should achieve and what legal basis they should stand upon.”

And with regard to those same “contentions” surrounding the rules, the official admitted the agency “would not be surprised” if it gets sued and taken to court.

“We want to have the absolute strongest basis in court and so we’ve taken great care to address contentions that are made to explain both the factual and the legal bases for our decisions so that that the court has the most fulsome possible explanation in front of it if and when litigation ensues,” the official said.

“That takes some time and as you can see from the release today it takes some space,” the official added.

Even before the final vote tally last month, Republicans were already vowing legal action if the plan went through. Now that it has, all but certain is the possibility that the agency will find itself defending the controversial “power grab,” as one Republican senator called it, in court.

“I still think that they have approached this in a very political way and if you look at the statements that are being made by the Republican members of the commission, this is going to be a very partisan vote and issue where it could be very bipartisan if they would have allowed a legislative process to go forward and us to work with Democrats on Capitol Hill,” Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) told TheBlaze shortly before the FCC’s vote.

Thune, along with many in his party, has argued the decision is one that should be left up to Congress to decide, not the FCC. In his remarks to the commission just before the vote, Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai agreed with Thune, calling the plan a “monumental shift toward government control of the Internet” and a “rapid departure” from market-oriented approaches.

Likewise, Republican Commissioner Mike O’Rielly suggested legal challenges lie ahead, telling the commission in his remarks just before the vote that the plan is “not likely to survive judicial scrutiny.”


http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/12/fcc-finally-dumps-400-page-net-neutrality-plan-and-heres-why-it-says-its-so-long/

[Wilikon]

FCC Cites Groups Funded by Soros, Ford Foundations 206 Times in Internet Rules
Following ‘extremely bizarre’ decision, agency fails to mention important conservative group.



You get what you pay for. The liberal Ford and Soros foundations spent $196 million advocating for increased Internet regulation. New FCC rules revealed a shocking reliance on liberal activist groups those foundations funded, citing them a total of 206 times.

The 320-page document, released March 12, referenced groups like Common Cause, Free Press and Public Knowledge -- all which received Ford or Soros foundation money. Public Knowledge was referenced 72 times and Free Press 61 times. Congress began grilling top FCC officials in multiple hearings about the controversial new Internet regulations March 17.

The FCC’s new regulations entirely ignored six top conservative organizations critical of the FCC seizing power over the Internet. There were no mentions of The Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute, the American Enterprise Institute, the Media Research Center, the Competitive Enterprise Institute or American Commitment. The absence of American Commitment was especially ridiculous since that organization had a huge role in soliciting comments on the proposals.

At those Congressional hearings, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler defended his agency’s regulations claiming the “process was one of the most open and expansive process the FCC has ever run.” In a prepared statement ahead of the hearing, Wheeler said they’d “heard from nearly four million Americans, who overwhelmingly spoke in favor of preserving a free and open Internet.” But his claim contradicted evidence cited by the agency’s own report.

The FCC is closely tied to the network of liberal groups supporting so-called “net neutrality.” Internet activist group Public Knowledge received a combined $6,355,500 from the Ford and Open Society foundations and its founder and former president Gigi Sohn currently works as counselor to the FCC Chairman. The current president of Public Knowledge used to work for New America Foundation, another “net neutrality” advocacy group mentioned in FCC’s rules that was given a combined $14,077,875.

The group’s stated mission was to promote “an open internet.” Altogether Ford Foundation or George Soros’ Open Society Foundation gave $71 million to groups cited by the FCC in the rules, not counting the additional 80-page dissent. The document, without the dissent, also had 1,952 footnotes.

FCC relied on Public Knowledge’s pro-regulation position. “As recognized by Congress, the Commission’s [FCC] oversight here is necessary to protect consumers from service interruption and termination,” the new regulations quoted Public Knowledge saying.

The rules also cited Public Knowledge’s argument that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not be allowed to charge customers different rates based on usage. Public Knowledge said that if ISPs did so, they, “have every incentive to construct a slow lane that performs poorly enough to justify extra payments from those edge services who can afford to do so.”

Common Cause and Free Press were also cited by the FCC, and both were funded by the Ford and Open Society Foundations. Common Cause’s Education Fund got $4,398,500 from the two foundations, while Free Press got $6,120,000. The groups had something else in common too. Former FCC Commissioner and former FCC Acting Chairman Michael Copps sits on both their boards.

Copps supported the FCC decision to classify Internet service as a “utility,” writing on March 2 that it  “was the biggest and best decision by any FCC in years, perhaps ever.”

In 2009, Copps criticized those concerned with the possibility of the FCC reinstating the anti-free speech Censorship Doctrine that the left calls the Fairness Doctrine. He called them “conspiracy theorists” who are engaged in “issue mongering” by “resurrecting the straw man of a bye-gone Fairness Doctrine.”

The FCC cited plenty of liberal support for their regulations and even made it seem like most reactions were pro-regulation.

"While there has been some public dispute as to the percentage of comments taking one position or another, it is clear that the majority of comments support Commission action to protect the open Internet,” the FCC said.

But a liberal foundation mentioned in a footnote of the massive document proved the opposite. The Sunlight Foundation, a group that received a combined $1,595,000 from Ford Foundation and Open Society, analyzed 1.6 million comments to the FCC in a December 2014 report. It found that 60 percent of the comments opposed net neutrality, and attributed the bulk of those to the conservative group American Commitment. Indeed, 56.5 percent of all comments submitted to the FCC were based on language formulated by American Commitment, according to the report.

Yet, American Commitment wasn’t cited a single time in the new FCC rules.

American Commitment President Phil Kerpen told MRC Business that the FCC’s ruling was “extremely bizarre,” and that the “result is: price regulation, tax hikes, job losses.”

“We’re taking something that’s really worked without regulation and it’s going to be really complex with it,” Kerpen said.

FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who was of two votes against the new regulations, recently said, “I would imagine in the next month or two we’re going to see for the first time taxes placed on broadband bills. Your bill is going to go up.”

Watchdog.org highlighted “one really scary sentence” from the FCC rules on March 13.  The provision read, “A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.”

Who would “determine which Internet content is lawful and unlawful” remained unclear, according to Watchdog.org national investigative reporter Yaël Ossowski.



http://www.mrc.org/articles/fcc-cites-groups-funded-soros-ford-foundations-206-times-internet-rules