Obama's "Net Neutrality"

[monty]

This just came in my emai. I think It is too important to ignore:
http://youtu.be/u2qChnWa8pk James, I want to give you a heads up about something I've been working on. It began as a simple idea born from the desire to solve a multitude of issues facing this nation. In 48 hours it will be revealed. The idea was put to paper in the form of a sketch 5 months ago, then sent out to a designer to perfect. When the design was finalized I sent them out to create the first prototypes. In 48 hours, Thursday Febuary 26, we're going to launch something remarkable... and I want you to be a part of it! I'm not going to say anything more... just look for my email in 48 hours. For Liberty, Gary Franchi PS. The future of the internet as we know it is at hand. We just released this special report regarding the FCC Commissioner's shocking words:
http://youtu.be/u2qChnWa8pk (http://clicks.aweber.com/y/ct/?l=De.qO&m=ItXlT28481zPN1&b=Jus.g2D8TY_WyMZmTsy3Iw) [
[LEFT][FONT=Verdana !important]
3149 Dundee Rd #176 (http://gold-silver.us/forum/x-apple-data-detectors://2) Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (http://gold-silver.us/forum/x-apple-data-detectors://2)

[Cebu_4_2]

Shared. Funny I don't see anything in regards on social media. Probably blocked, I need to log in as someone else to see if it posts.

[monty]

Net neutrality approved


http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91212&siteSection=washingtonexaminer&videoId=28648333



The Federal Communications Commission Thursday approved strict new rules for Internet service providers, passing so-called net neutrality regulations sure to ignite a barrage of legal challenges and debate about how Americans access digital information.
By a 3-2 vote, FCC commissioners opted to begin treating the Internet like a public utility, using Title II of the 1934 Communications Act to dramatically expand oversight of broadband providers.
"We listened, and we learned," said FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler. "The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules."
Wheeler was joined by the commission’s two Democratic members in pushing through a plan that he opposed last year. The two Republican commissioners voted against the plan.
Critics have accused Wheeler of acquiescing to pressure from President Obama, who made a very public push in recent months for the independent agency to approve his net neutrality standards.
Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter! (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/net-neutrality-approved/article/2560759#)


MORE STORIES




GOP congressman: My kids aren't vaccinated and they're 'healthy' (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-congressman-my-kids-arent-vaccinated-and-theyre-healthy/article/2560774)

BY KELLY COHEN (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/AUTHOR/KELLY-COHEN) | 02/26/15 2:46 PM
Barry Loudermilk talked on video about vaccinations and his family.
Susan Rice, Samantha Power to attend pro-Israel conference (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/susan-rice-samantha-power-to-attend-pro-israel-conference/article/2560773)

BY BRIAN HUGHES (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/AUTHOR/BRIAN-HUGHES) | 02/26/15 2:40 PM
Obama's move is a bit of counter programming to Netanyahu's address to Congress on Tuesday.
Trey Gowdy's warning for supporters of Obama's executive action (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trey-gowdys-warning-for-supporters-of-obamas-executive-action/article/2560768)

BY KELLY COHEN (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/AUTHOR/KELLY-COHEN) | 02/26/15 2:01 PM
The South Carolina Republican says "if you weaken [the law] today, you weaken it forever."
White House defends Hillary Clinton on donations (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-defends-hillary-clinton-on-donations/article/2560766)

BY BRIAN HUGHES (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/AUTHOR/BRIAN-HUGHES) | 02/26/15 1:58 PM
White House insisted that Clinton performed her job "without even the appearance of a conflict of interest."
Scott Walker: I will not take the media's bait (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/scott-walker-i-will-not-take-the-medias-bait/article/2560756)

BY KELLY COHEN (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/AUTHOR/KELLY-COHEN) | 02/26/15 12:49 PM
The Wisconsin Republican pushes back in a new op-ed.



WEX TV



http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/1589/1663740750001_4082515598001_christie-immigration-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chris-christie-skirts-question-on-immigration/video/bc-4082467820001)Chris Christie skirts question on immigration (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chris-christie-skirts-question-on-immigration/video/bc-4082467820001)
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/2115/1663740750001_4082460090001_chris-christie-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chris-christie-on-being-labeled-hot-headed/video/bc-4082387363001)Chris Christie on being labeled 'hot-headed' (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/chris-christie-on-being-labeled-hot-headed/video/bc-4082387363001)
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/1051/1663740750001_4082417151001_15-2-26-Community-Broadband-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fcc-overrules-state-bans-on-municipal-broadband/video/bc-4082387310001)FCC overrules state bans on municipal broadband (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fcc-overrules-state-bans-on-municipal-broadband/video/bc-4082387310001)
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/21/1663740750001_4082225861001_Lynch-nomination-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/loretta-lynch-nomination-heads-to-senate-floor/video/bc-4082162224001)Loretta Lynch nomination heads to Senate floor (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/loretta-lynch-nomination-heads-to-senate-floor/video/bc-4082162224001)




Under the rules, service providers would be prohibited from establishing so-called fast lanes, charging companies higher prices for quicker access to Web sites. They are also not allowed to slow content delivery, a prohibition that defenders say would ensure an “open Internet.”
However, Republicans charge that the FCC vote was unnecessary and is just the latest example of executive overreach during the Obama years. They also say the regulations will stifle the growth of the industry.
“Americans love the free and open Internet,” said FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. “So it is sad to witness this morning the FCC’s unprecedented attempt to replace that freedom with government control.”
The controversial vote came after an extensive grassroots campaign in which the typically lesser-known Washington agency was inundated with millions of public comments advocating for a stronger net neutrality commitment.
In advance of Thursday’s vote, Republicans were accused of retreating on the issue, as they did not introduce their own legislative proposal as expected. However, Republicans insist they will pursue legislation in the coming months.
“Any claims that Republicans have conceded or surrendered to the Obama administration’s power grab of the Internet through FCC action is a mischaracterization of our ongoing efforts,” said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John Thune, R-S.D. “One way or another, I am committed to moving a legislative solution, preferably bipartisan, to stop monopoly-era phone regulations that harm Internet consumers and innovation.”
Conservatives argue that the progressive victory could be short-lived. A federal court tossed the last version of the net neutrality rules.
Industry groups expect at least one of the major Internet service providers to file a lawsuit and request that the latest regulations not be enshrined until the legal process plays out. And if a Republican wins the White House in 2016, a GOP-led FCC could always overturn the rules.


Washington Examiner (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/)Copyright 2015 Washington Examiner


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/net-neutrality-approved/article/2560759

[mick silver]

shhhhhhhhh this was done behind closed doors ...... it's a secret that's what I have seen on the news

[Cebu_4_2]

The FCC approved this? How can they do that?

[Dogman]

The FCC approved this? How can they do that?

In many ways they are semiindependent from both houses!

[mick silver]

seen this I don't know what to make of it .... UN Takeover of the Internet?FCC moves on net neutrality could lead to United Nations takeover of the web 2.26.2015
News (http://www.truthrevolt.org/news)
Brian Lilley (http://www.truthrevolt.org/author/brian-lilley)
57 (http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/un-takeover-internet#disqus_thread)
20226


http://www.truthrevolt.org/sites/default/files/styles/content_full_width/public/field/image/articles/un_2.jpg?itok=1-xZgf0C
Could the push for net neutrality by the Obama administration lead to countries like Russia, China or Saudi Arabia having a greater role in regulating the web? Don't laugh, it could happen.
For years, successive American governments have rejected a greater role for the United Nations regulating the internet by arguing that it is not a telecommunications service and therefore the UN's International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int/en/action/broadband/Pages/default.aspx) should have no role, but Thursday's vote by the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify internet service as such could pave the way for a UN takeover.
David Gross, a lawyer and former ambassador to the ITU under President George W. Bush, told National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-future-of-broadband/republicans-fear-net-neutrality-plan-could-lead-to-un-internet-powers-20150225) that the FCC's expected vote Thursday could change everything.
"If they were to find that Internet service is a telecommunications service, that would undoubtedly make the job of my successors much more complicated," Gross said.
Gross is not alone in seeing the danger.
National Journal (http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/the-future-of-broadband/republicans-fear-net-neutrality-plan-could-lead-to-un-internet-powers-20150225) also cites Republican John Thune of South Dakota as being worried about the implications of the reclassification. Thune, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, says the FCC move will make it more difficult for the United States to push back against countries that want centralized control of internet service and content.

Countries like Russia already have made it clear that they want the International Telecommunications Union or another United Nations body to have more power over the Internet, Thune said.
"It seems like reclassifying broadband, as the administration is doing, is losing a valuable argument," Thune said at his panel's hearing on Internet governance. "How do you prevent ITU involvement when you're pushing to reclassify the Internet under Title II of the Communications Act, and is everyone aware of that inherent contradiction?"
Net neutrality is being sold by President Obama and other supporters as a way to keep the internet free and open to innovation by giving the government greater control.

[monty]

What a f'd up world we live in!

[Dogman]

Or!

An attempt to keep the net fair, so internet providers can not throttle the net down for some and increase the speed of the content providers that pay extra. This is nothing but a play to make more money from the content providers! As I understand it.

Say Netflix pays the extra so their movies download faster, but other entertainment providers that do not pay the "bite" are limited to a slower speed.

Right now the field is fairly level, but without net neutrality there will be a tiered net, not so much for the users, but for dam sure for the content providers.

The fiber trunkline owners want more, its all about the money honey, for a way to drag in more bucks with out increasing the load (bill) of the end user which is you and me!

As I understand the issue!

So enforcing net neutrality is maybe a good thing!

[Shami-Amourae]

ObamaNet.

[Dogman]

ObamaNet.

Think this issue has been brewing long before the bammer got into office! Iirc!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality

[Uncle Salty]

Asshole policy FTW!

[monty]

Think this issue has been brewing long before the bammer got into office! Iirc!

I think you're right, but this time it was done bypassing the congress behind closed doors.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Dogman]

I think you're right, but this time it was done bypassing the congress behind closed doors.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

Iirc correctly, for most matters dealing with all types of communications the FCC does not need to go through ether house?

They revamped/modernize an older ruling to reflect today's reality which is good! Seeing both houses of government are in big business pockets. I could be wrong, but think not!

Think without neutrality, prices for everyone would go up and give big businesses more control of the net!

IMO!

[madfranks]

Under the rules, service providers would be prohibited from establishing so-called fast lanes, charging companies higher prices for quicker access to Web sites.


So, are they also going to ban overnight mail and package delivery, because it's unfair that people can pay more to have their mail delivered quicker? Think about it, you can pay a low fee to have your mail delivered in a few days, or a high fee for overnight delivery. This is the same thing, only digital. Low-content websites don't need super fast bandwidth, while content-heavy sites & companies (like Netflix) need fast bandwidth on demand in order to stream HD video to all their customers. They're paying for it, why can't they have it? If they're forced to use slow bandwidth because it's "netrual," you've just created an incentive to reduce content, reduce bandwidth, reduce speed. High speed internet will now be slow, because that's the only way it can be fair for everyone.

[Dogman]

So, are they also going to ban overnight mail and package delivery, because it's unfair that people can pay more to have their mail delivered quicker? Think about it, you can pay a low fee to have your mail delivered in a few days, or a high fee for overnight delivery. This is the same thing, only digital. Low-content websites don't need super fast bandwidth, while content-heavy sites & companies (like Netflix) need fast bandwidth on demand in order to stream HD video to all their customers. They're paying for it, why can't they have it? If they're forced to use slow bandwidth because it's "netrual," you've just created an incentive to reduce content, reduce bandwidth, reduce speed. High speed internet will now be slow, because that's the only way it can be fair for everyone.

You do make a mighty fine point !

[madfranks]

A different perspective.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2015/02/27/the-fcc-is-toothless-and-feckless/


The Federal Communications Commission is yesterday’s regulatory system. It is bureaucratic. It is slow. Think of it as a dial-up modem.

Any time that you read that the FCC is about to take over the Internet, keep things in perspective.

It can announce new rules. These rules will apply in the United States.

There are 196 nations. The FCC has zero authority in 195 of them. Each nation has different rules. Anyone can set up a website in most of them. Anyone can select the best legal location for his website. You can’t set up in North Korea. Cuba is off limits, but not for long. But if anyone wants to set up a website, he can find a server somewhere.

There are no significant international regulations.

Web search engines can find any site, anywhere. These days, they have indexed over 4.5 billion pages. The FCC will be able to control almost none of them. The number of pages will rise.

To enforce its rules, the FCC must prosecute a violator in an American court. How many cases can its staff prosecute? How many convictions can it get? How many precedents will survive? Not many.

Think of the FCC as the Securities and Exchange Commission. Think of every website or blog editor as a potential Bernie Madoff. How likely is it that the FCC will be able to enforce its rules?

The FCC is trying to control pricing. It is setting up a system of price controls. When you hear the words “internet neutrality,” think “price controls.” But prices keep falling. Here is a technological law that has yet to be broken: “Bandwidth gets cheaper.”

Here is a universal economic law: “When the price falls, more is demanded.”

Think of the Internet as a game of digital whack-a-mole. The FCC is the sucker who keeps trying to whack the mole. “You almost got it that time, Buddy. You want to try again?” He keeps trying again.

It takes an estimated 100,000 employees in China to regulate the Internet. But Chinese citizens can still gain access to forbidden sites. The United States is not China. The FCC is not in a position to hire 100,000 bureaucrats.

The genie is long out of the bottle. Netscape’s browser arrived in 1995. That opened the World Wide Web to the general public. Two decades of innovation followed. The FCC is now trying for the third time to gain control over the Web. Americans have a phrase for this: “A day late, and a dollar short.”

The Internet has stayed ahead of all regulators. It will continue to do so.

The best and the brightest are developing new programs, new solutions. They are doing this all over the world. The tenured and the tired are planning to regulate this process from Washington. Some kid in India comes up with a new technology. What is the FCC going to do about it? Pass a new rule? Some kid in China will have a work-around a month later.

Yes, things could be a little freer at the margin. This is always true. But in the overall sweep of Internet transformation, the FCC is a flea on an elephant’s back. Nothing fundamental is going to change.

Stop worrying. The FCC is a digital paper tiger. It can make things less efficient. It can increase marginal costs. But all talk about “the end of Internet freedom” is left over from the era of television’s three-network oligopoly. That was back when the FCC had teeth. It is Walter Cronkite-era rhetoric. It is gone with the wind.

I get tired of this: “Woe is us!” I get tired of this: “The federal government is unstoppable.” The federal government is a bunch of tenured bureaucrats who just want to keep their jobs until they retire, and who don’t want to suffer a humiliating defeat in public by suing some large outfit with expensive lawyers on its payroll.

The information gatekeepers are finished. They stand at the gate, telling us that we must meet their standards to get through. Meanwhile, the walls are down.

The essence of bureaucracy is this combination: lack of innovation, lack of courage, lack of vision, lack of long-term planning, and lack of collective IQ.

Government is dumb.

[Cebu_4_2]

Ok if this is true then Net Nutrality is going to be real bad:

Soros, Ford Foundation shovel $196 million to 'net neutrality' groups, staff to White House

By Paul Bedard (http://washingtonexaminer.com/author/paul-bedard) | February 26, 2015 | 6:56 pm

http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/w200-77eaa753c64307aa775569aebdaa28a1.jpg (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gallery/articleid/2560702)
MRC Business has a project dedicated to following liberal philanthropist George Soros.

Liberal philanthropist George Soros and the Ford Foundation have lavished groups supporting the administration’s “net neutrality” agenda, donating $196 million and landing proponents on the White House staff, according to a new report.

And now, as the Federal Communications Commission nears approving a type of government control over the Internet, the groups are poised to declare victory in the years-long fight, according to the report from MRC Business (http://www.mrc.org/BMI), an arm of the conservative media watchdog, the Media Research Center.

“The Ford Foundation, which claims to be the second-largest private foundation in the U.S., and Open Society Foundations, founded by far-left billionaire George Soros, have given more than $196 million to pro-net neutrality groups between 2000 and 2013,” said the report, authored by Media Research Center’s Joseph Rossell, and provided to Secrets.




No regrets: Richest women have the most sex, fewest babies (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-regrets-richest-women-have-the-most-sex-fewest-babies/article/2560814)

BY PAUL BEDARD (HTTP://WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/AUTHOR/PAUL-BEDARD) | 02/27/15 10:55 AM
A Brookings Institution study finds that the nation's richest single women have the most sex --- by a hair.
Voters: Ignore Obama vetoes, keep passing bills he doesn't like (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/voters-ignore-obama-vetoes-keep-passing-bills-he-doesnt-like/article/2560818)

BY PAUL BEDARD (HTTP://WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/AUTHOR/PAUL-BEDARD) | 02/27/15 10:17 AM
Voters to the GOP Congress: Ignore veto threats, keep passing bills the president doesn't want.
Obama to ban bullets by executive action, threatens top-selling AR-15 rifle (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-to-ban-bullets-by-executive-action-threatens-top-selling-ar-15-rifle/article/2560750)

BY PAUL BEDARD (HTTP://WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/AUTHOR/PAUL-BEDARD) | 02/27/15 6:19 AM
President Obama moves to ban bullets used in the popular AR-15 style rifle via executive action.
Medal of Honor for sniper Chris Kyle proposed (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/medal-of-honor-for-sniper-chris-kyle-proposed/article/2560772)

BY PAUL BEDARD (HTTP://WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/AUTHOR/PAUL-BEDARD) | 02/26/15 6:52 PM
Slain Navy sniper Chris Kyle could get the Congressional Medal of Honor under a new bill.
Clinton leads GOP field by 7-10 points, Bush is furthest back (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-leads-gop-field-by-7-10-points-bush-is-furthest-back/article/2560720)

BY PAUL BEDARD (HTTP://WASHINGTONEXAMINER.COM/AUTHOR/PAUL-BEDARD) | 02/25/15 5:26 PM
A new poll finds that Hillary Clinton is ahead of the whole GOP field by at least seven points.





http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/2325/1663740750001_4084542333001_15-2-27-Santorum-CPAC-Common-Core-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/santorum-speaks-out-against-common-core-at-cpac/video/bc-4084494596001) Santorum speaks out against Common Core at CPAC (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/santorum-speaks-out-against-common-core-at-cpac/video/bc-4084494596001)
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/2587/1663740750001_4084479533001_15-2-27-Santorum-CPAC-Climate-ISIS-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-santorum-we-don-t-need-meteorologist-chief/video/bc-4084453266001) Rick Santorum: We don’t need a ‘Meteorologist in Chief’ (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-santorum-we-don-t-need-meteorologist-chief/video/bc-4084453266001)
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/587/1663740750001_4084474334001_15-2-27-Santorum-CPAC-Climate-ISIS-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-santorum-wants-to-bomb-islamic-state-back-to-seventh-century/video/bc-4084453260001) Rick Santorum wants to bomb the Islamic State ‘back to the seventh century’ (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rick-santorum-wants-to-bomb-islamic-state-back-to-seventh-century/video/bc-4084453260001)
http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/v1/unsecured/media/1663740750001/201502/955/1663740750001_4084429181001_15-2-27-Paul-CPAC-Term-Limits-vs.jpg?pubId=1663740750001 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-pushes-term-limits-at-cpac/video/bc-4084431114001) Rand Paul pushes term limits at CPAC (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/rand-paul-pushes-term-limits-at-cpac/video/bc-4084431114001)


“These left-wing groups not only impacted the public debate and funded top liberal think tanks from the Center for American Progress to Free Press. They also have direct ties to the White House and regulatory agencies. At least five individuals from these groups have ascended to key positions at the White House and FCC,” said the report which included funding details to pro-net neutrality advocates.

RELATED: Inside Obama's net fix (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560377)

It quoted critic Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment, saying, “The biggest money in this debate is from the liberal foundations that lavish millions on self-styled grassroots groups pushing for more and more regulation and federal control.”

Groups funded by Soros and Ford include the Center for American Progress, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Media Matters for America. They received a total of $54,226,097 from the Ford and Open Society Foundations.

Both the Ford Foundation, not affiliated with Ford Motor Co., and Open Society support the initiative.

RELATED: 4 major questions in the net neutrality debate (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2560013)

Some of those supported by the two groups’ funding have also worked the White House, notably John Podesta, former Center for American Progress head and now expected to run Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

MRC Business regularly follows the spending and activity of Soros, and even has an initiative to keep an eye on his advocacy called the Soros Project (http://www.mrc.org/BMI)

[singular_me]

lets see if I got this right: so we have loopholes designed by politicians for multi-media corporations, then the latter abuse them and end up fighting among one another... then the gov steps in and takes everything over, claiming it will fix/enforce prices to protect consumers... another case of : problem, reaction, solution

how can't people see that enforcement is the problem to start with. How can't one see that corporations and bankers own politicians and that it is all a big circus?


Think without neutrality, prices for everyone would go up and give big businesses more control of the net!

[Cebu_4_2]

how can't people see that enforcement is the problem to start with. How can't one see that corporations and bankers own politicians and that it is all a big circus?

Don't matter much, nothing people could have done to stop it.

[singular_me]

was more or less responding to the quote saying that neutrality is a necessity

that okay to feel powerless but saying that we "need" it is a big leap.


Don't matter much, nothing people could have done to stop it.

[EE_]

I hope they ruin the whole internet and take the banking system down with it. People need a good shock to get off digital.
I see so many people now that are constantly playing on their iPhones...makes me sick.

[EE_]

I'd like to see more of these events and even bigger. I think people need to be shocked into being less dependent on the internet and driven back to using currency. Everyone is totally caught up in the new government controlled digital economy and digital payments...no one is prepared if the internet goes down. Maybe we shouldn't worry though, if it does go down I'm sure the government will be there to help you.

What happens when the Internet goes out? This Arizona town found out

A sign posted outside a Baskin-Robbins ice cream store in Flagstaff, Ariz., Wednesday advises customers that only cash or checks will be accepted due to an Internet and phone outage. (Felicia Fonseca/AP Photo)
By ASSOCIATED PRESS Business Crime

Arizona town at near standstill after the Internet goes out
Computers, cellphones and landlines in Arizona were knocked out of service for hours, ATMs stopped working, 911 systems were disrupted and businesses were unable to process credit card transactions — all because a vandal apparently sliced through a fiber-optic Internet cable buried under the desert.

The Internet outage did more than underscore just how dependent modern society has become on high technology. It raised questions about the vulnerability of the nation's Internet infrastructure.

Alex Juarez, a spokesman for Internet service provider CenturyLink, said the problem was first reported around noon Wednesday, and complaints immediately began to pour in from customers in an area stretching from the northern edges of Phoenix to cities like Flagstaff, Prescott and Sedona.

Internet and phone service started to come back to some residents and businesses in Flagstaff by 6:30 p.m. and was fully restored by about 3 a.m.

CenturyLink blamed vandalism, and police are investigating.

The severed CenturyLink-owned cable is near a riverbed in a rocky stretch of desert north of Phoenix that isn't easily accessible to vehicles. It carries signals for various cellphone, TV and Internet providers that serve northern Arizona.

Workers in hardhats could be seen digging up and splicing the cables, which appeared to be bundled in a jacket a few inches in diameter and buried several feet under the rocky soil.

CenturyLink gave no estimate on how many people were affected.

As the outage spread, CenturyLink technicians began the long, tedious process of inspecting the line mile by mile. They eventually located the severed cable and patched it back together.

Meanwhile, Flagstaff's 69,000 residents tried to go about their daily business.

Zak Holland, who works at a computer store at Northern Arizona University, said distraught students were nearly in tears when he said nothing could be done to restore their Internet connection.

"It just goes to show how dependent we are on the Internet when it disappears," he said.

Many students told Holland they needed to get online to finish school assignments. University spokesman Tom Bauer said it was up to individual professors to decide how to handle late assignments.

Kate Hance and Jessie Hutchison stopped at a Wells Fargo ATM to get cash because an ice cream shop couldn't take credit cards without a data connection. They left empty-handed because the outage also put cash machines out of service.

"It's moderately annoying, but it's not going to ruin my day," Hutchison said.

Mark Goldstein, secretary for the Arizona Telecommunications and Information Council, said CenturyLink's cable probably has bundles of fibers that can be leased to multiple service providers. If there is no alternative path, damage to the line will wreak havoc, he said.

At Flagstaff City Hall, employees were unable make or receive calls at their desks. The city relied on the Arizona Department of Public Safety for help in dispatching police and firefighters.

In Prescott Valley, about 75 miles north of Phoenix, authorities said 911 service was being supplemented with hand-held radios and alternate phone numbers.

Yavapai County spokesman Dwight D'Evelyn said authorities couldn't get access to law enforcement databases either.

Weather reports from the region weren't able to reach anyone. During evening newscasts, Phoenix TV stations showed blank spaces on their weather maps where local temperatures would normally appear.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-arizona-internet-outage-20150227-story.html

[mick silver]

I have started many threads on this , I knew it was coming ... when soros talks to the leaders of the free world they his kiss ass . if you really want to see who soros is take a trip back in time I have more threads on here about this man who thinks he is a god

[monty]

Soros is not a man Mick, He is a devil puré evil.

Sent from my iPad using Forum Runner

[Cebu_4_2]

Netflix May Already Regret Its Support for the FCC’s New Net Neutrality Rules (http://reason.com/blog/2015/03/05/netflix-may-already-regret-its-support-f)
The agency's new Internet rules will only make the web worse.
Peter Suderman (http://reason.com/people/peter-suderman/all)|Mar. 5, 2015 3:05 pm

Ajit Pai / TwitterOver at Wired, Geoffrey Manne, the Executive Director of the International Center for Law and Economics, has one of the very best critical takes (http://www.wired.com/2015/03/fcc-better-call-saul/) on the Federal Communications Commission’s decision last week to overhaul the way broadband Internet is regulated in order to enforce net neutrality rules. Manne makes a couple points that are worth repeating.

The first is that the new regulations give the agency license to go far beyond what supporters of the Title II/net neutrality regime have said is necessary—and, in doing so, may actually inhibit more valuable and effective consumer protection regulations from the Federal Trade Commission:

You were sold a bill of goods when activists told you net neutrality was all about protecting “the next Facebook” from evil ISPs. Think about it: If you’re “the next Facebook,” who do you think is more worried about you? Your ISP, or Facebook itself? If the problem is between Facebook and its potential challengers, hamstringing ISPs is an awfully roundabout way of dealing with it. Especially because we already have a regulatory apparatus to deal with issues related to competition: antitrust laws.

But consider this irony: Now that ISPs are regulated under Title II as common carriers, the Federal Trade Commission can’t enforce its consumer protection laws against them anymore.

That doesn’t mean there won’t be antitrust enforcement, but we did just hobble our most significant and experienced consumer protection authority. That seems like a mistake if we’re enacting rules that purport to protect consumers.


This may not be exactly how it all plays out, but it’s not a bad bet. We don’t know for sure, of course, in part because we haven’t even seen the full FCC order yet; indeed, according to an agency statement earlier this week, it hasn’t even been finalized yet (http://www.fcc.gov/blog/process-governance-fcc-open-internet-order).
But with rules as broad, sweeping, and untested as what’s been described so far, you can pretty much always be sure of two things: that over time, the regulatory agency in charge will claim additional authority—especially as leadership and agendas change—and that there will be a variety of unintended consequences. That’s what Manne is getting at here.

In a similar vein, Manne notes that the expansiveness of the new rules make them a prime target for corporate rent-seeking. In fact, the rules are already the product of rent-seeking campaigns on behalf of the big Internet content companies that supported them:

Even staunch net neutrality supporters like EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules) [the Electronic Frontier Foundation] worry about the breadth of the FCC’s new “general conduct” standard. Couple that with language that invites complaints and class action lawsuits, and suddenly a regulation claimed to ensure “just and reasonable” conduct becomes a rent-seeking free-for-all.

But surely ISPs have it in for Netflix, right? Actually, Comcast is the only ISP (out of the literally thousands that are now regulated under Title II) that competes with Netflix. And the evidence shows (http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/06/netflix-isp-newdata.html) that the problems allegedly arising from that competition were caused by Netflix, not Comcast. Did we really just enact 300 pages of legally questionable, enormously costly, transformative rules
just to help Netflix in a trivial (http://cbit.org/blog/2014/06/netflix-admits-interconnection-costs-so-small-they-dont-harm-consumers/) commercial spat (http://www.wired.com/2014/05/actually-the-comcast-time-warner-merger-doesnt-hurt-netflix/)?


This is worth dwelling on for a moment, in part because Netflix was one of the most visible and widely covered supporters of the FCC net neutrality push that led to last week’s decision. The company “[relished] its role as the corporate leader in the fight for net neutrality,” National Journal reported (http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/netflix-has-replaced-google-as-the-face-of-net-neutrality-20140915) last September—and in doing so, backed a position “would protect its profits” while “earning goodwill from Web activists and liberals.” Netflix, in other words, is the company best positioned to benefit from these rules.

Here’s the punchline: It’s barely been a week since the FCC’s Title II order passed, and the video service is already expressing regret. Here’s what CFO David Wells said at an industry conference earlier this week, according to Variety (http://variety.com/2015/digital/news/netflix-cfo-pleased-with-fcc-title-ii-ruling-although-its-preference-would-have-been-no-broadband-regulation-1201446282/): “Were we pleased it pushed to Title II? Probably not. We were hoping there might be a non-regulated solution.” The company still insists that it is pleased with the ruling overall, but wishes that there had been no broadband regulation.

But the point is that even Netflix, the poster-child for corporate support of the FCC's move, is, at minimum, not entirely pleased with the outcome. So if anything, the Title II overhaul might be even worse than what Manne suggests: We might have enacted 300 pages of drastic, dubious regulations just to help a company that didn’t even want all those rules in the first place.
Watch ReasonTV's interview with FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, who voted against the new rules, below: