Obama’s Non-Transparent Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wheeler Refuses To Testify Before Congress or Publish Online The Proposed Draft Internet Regulations Pertaining To Net Neutrality (332 Page Final Draft) Before Voting on Thursday, February 26, 2015 — Government Bureaucrats Messing With The Internet and Freedom of Speech — Time To Abolish The FCC — It Is All About Money and Power — Videos

Posted on February 26, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Family, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, Friends, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Investments, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Programming, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 422: February 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 1: Obama’s Non-Transparent Federal Communications Commission Chairman Wheeler Refuses To Testify Before Congress or Publish Online The Proposed Draft Internet Regulations Pertaining To  Net Neutrality (332 Page Final Draft) Before Voting on Thursday, February 26, 2015 — Government Bureaucrats Messing With The Internet and Freedom of Speech — Time To Abolish The FCC — It Is All About Money and Power — Videos

obama-dictator-uniformobama_dictatorobama-dictator

fcc-tom-wheelerfcc-board-members voted for government takeover of internet

Three Democrats Voted For Government Regulation, Taxation and Control of Internet

obama_plans_net_grab

FCC’s Ajit Pai: Net Neutrality is a “Solution That Won’t Work to a Problem That Doesn’t Exist”

Internet Rejoices as FCC Imposes Strict Net Neutrality Rules

Sources: Wheeler Tweaks Net Neutrality Plan After Google Push

GOP Leader Slams FCC Ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

Sen. John Thune hammered the Federal Communications Commission ahead of a vote on net neutrality rules Thursday, which the South Dakota Republican termed a “partisan-line vote.”

“This will be the first time … where the Internet is going to be subject to the heavy-hand of regulation as opposed to the light touch that’s been utilized for so long up until this point,” Thune said. “And I hope that Feb. 26 doesn’t go down in history as the time when the Internet moved from something that was driven by free-market innovation to something that’s driven by bureaucratic decision making.”

The Truth About ‘Net Neutrality’ – FCC Rules Tomorrow. Please watch, & please circulate!

Net Neutrality will destroy the internet

The Truth About Net Neutrality

Limbaugh on “Net Neutrality”: Obama Exploits Ignorance of Young People to Seize Control of Internet

FCC Chairman Details His Net Neutrality Proposal

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan would apply to ISPs and wireless carriers. It will go to a full vote later this month.

FCC Chairman Signals New Net Neutrality Rules – IGN News

President Obama’s Statement on Keeping the Internet Open and Free

President Obama Makes Strong Pro Net Neutrality Statement…But Why?

Net Neutrality Explained. Simply and Accurately!

HOUSE CHAIR DEMANDS FCC NET NEUTRALITY GAG ORDER LIFTED

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) demanded yesterday that the Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler make public the details of the proposed net neutrality regulations that will regulate the Internet under the same rules as the old AT&T monopoly.

Chaffetz also asked the FCC Chair to appear and answer questions at the House Oversight hearing Wednesday, prior to the planned Agency vote on the draft rules now scheduled for Thursday.

The 332-page final draft FCC order was only delivered to the four other FCC commissioners three weeks ago. When Wheeler delivered the document, he took the unusual step of issuing a “gag order” to prevent its release before the FCC vote.

The FCC was forced to revisit “net neutrality” rules because the agency’s egregious 2010 effort at writing “Open Internet Rules” was thrown out in January 2014 by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Verizon v. FCC. Although the appeals court agreed the FCC had the authority to regulate broadband services, they rejected the FCC’s potentially biased micro-managing of the Internet.

Chairman Wheeler tried to ramrod President Obama’s net neutrality proposal through the FCC on May 15, 2014. It was understood at the time that Wheeler was trying to maximize FCC breadth for the new rules by basing the legal authority of his proposal on parts of both Title II of the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. But the day before the meeting, his fellow Democratic Commissioners, Jessica Rosenworcel and Mignon Clyburn, pushed back on the rush to regulate after being bombarded by consumers who wanted to preserve an open Internet.

In a blog post at the time, Commissioner Clyburn noted, “over 100,000 Americans have spoken” via email, calls and letters. Commissioner Rosenworcel added that she also wanted the FCC to delay consideration of the rules after the torrent of public response.

Breitbart reported on February 9 in “Republican FCC Member Warns Net Neutrality is Not Neutral” that Ajit Pai, as one of two Republican Commissioners on the FCC, tweeted, “I wish the public could see what’s inside.” Pai included a selfie of himself holding the huge document in front of a picture of Obama. The posture of the photo was clearly meant to depict the president as George Orwell’s “Big Brother.”

Pai later released a statement: “President Obama’s plan marks a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet. It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works,” he said. “The plan explicitly opens the door to billions of dollars in new taxes on broadband… These new taxes will mean higher prices for consumers and more hidden fees that they have to pay.”

The Breitbart article generated over 4,600 comments and set off a firestorm on the Drudge Report as the public realized that the FCC process seemed fundamentally biased due to a lack of transparency and full disclosure prior to such an important regulatory vote. The public was also incensed that the free-for-all Internet was about to be subject to up to $16 billion a year in FCC user taxes and fees.

Congressman Chaffetz also sent Wheeler a letter questioning whether the FCC had been “independent, fair and transparent” in fashioning the rules to supposedly protect Internet content. “Although arguably one of the most sweeping new rules in the commission’s history, the process was conducted without using many of the tools at the chairman’s disposal to ensure transparency and public review,” Chaffetz added.

Representative Chaffetz included in the letter that there is a precedent for the FCC Chairman to make rules public before a vote. In 2007, Chairman Kevin Martin released to the public new media ownership rules, and the entire FCC testified in a House hearing prior to the final vote.

An elected official who supported the FCC postponement in 2007, Chaffetz notes, was Senator Barack Obama. “He specifically noted while a certain proposal ‘may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate.”

With political fireworks going off yesterday, Republican FCC commissioners Michael O’Rielly and Ajit Pai late in the day asked Wheeler to postpone Thursday’s vote and release the draft Internet regulatory proposal for a 30 day public comment period.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/02/24/house-chair-demands-fcc-net-neutrality-gag-order-lifted/

Dear FCC: Rethink The Vague “General Conduct” Rule

 BY CORYNNE MCSHERRY

For many months, EFF has been working with a broad coalition of advocates to persuade the Federal Communications Commission to adopt new Open Internet rules that would survive legal scrutiny and actually help protect the Open Internet. Our message has been clear from the beginning: the FCC has a role to play, but its role must be firmly bounded.

Two weeks ago, we learned that we had likely managed the first goal—the FCC is going to do the right thing and reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, giving it the ability to make new, meaningful Open Internet rules.  But we are deeply concerned that the FCC’s new rules will include a provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach and confusion: the so-called “general conduct rule.”

According to the FCC’s own “Fact Sheet,” the proposed rule will allow the FCC to review (and presumably punish) non-neutral practices that may “harm” consumers or edge providers. Late last week, as the window for public comment was closing, EFF filed a letter with the FCC urging it to clarify and sharply limit the scope of any “general conduct” provision:

[T]he Commission should use its Title II authority to engage in light-touch regulation, taking great care to adhere to clear, targeted, and transparent rules. A “general conduct rule,” applied on a case-by- case basis with the only touchstone being whether a given practice “harms” consumers or edge providers, may lead to years of expensive litigation to determine the meaning of “harm” (for those who can afford to engage in it). What is worse, it could be abused by a future Commission to target legitimate practices that offer significant benefits to the public . . .

Accordingly, if the Commission intends to adopt a “general conduct rule” it should spell out, in advance, the contours and limits of that rule, and clarify that the rule shall be applied only in specific circumstances.

Unfortunately, if a recent report from Reuters is correct, the general conduct rule will be anything but clear. The FCC will evaluate “harm” based on consideration of seven factors: impact on competition; impact on innovation; impact on free expression; impact on broadband deployment and investments; whether the actions in question are specific to some applications and not others; whether they comply with industry best standards and practices; and whether they take place without the awareness of the end-user, the Internet subscriber.

There are several problems with this approach.  First, it suggests that the FCC believes it has broad authority to pursue any number of practices—hardly the narrow, light-touch approach we need to protect the open Internet. Second, we worry that this rule will be extremely expensive in practice, because anyone wanting to bring a complaint will be hard-pressed to predict whether they will succeed. For example, how will the Commission determine “industry best standards and practices”? As a practical matter, it is likely that only companies that can afford years of litigation to answer these questions will be able to rely on the rule at all. Third, a multi-factor test gives the FCC an awful lot of discretion, potentially giving an unfair advantage to parties with insider influence.

We are days away from a final vote, and it appears that many of the proposed rules will make sense for the Internet. Based on what we know so far, however, the general conduct proposal may not. The FCC should rethink this one.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/02/dear-fcc-rethink-those-vague-general-conduct-rules

FCC Chair Refuses to Testify before Congress ahead of Net Neutrality Vote

by ANDREW JOHNSON February 25, 2015 10:19 AM

Two prominent House committee chairs are “deeply disappointed” in Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler for refusing to testify before Congress as “the future of the Internet is at stake.”

Wheeler’s refusal to go before the House Oversight Committee on Wednesday comes on the eve of the FCC’s vote on new Internet regulations pertaining to net neutrality. The committee’s chairman, Representative Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), and Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Fred Upton (R., Mich.) criticized Wheeler and the administration for lacking transparency on the issue.

“So long as the chairman continues to insist on secrecy, we will continue calling for more transparency and accountability at the commission,” Chaffetz and Upton said in a statement. “Chairman Wheeler and the FCC are not above Congress.”

The vote on the new Internet regulations is scheduled for Thursday. The FCC’s two Republican commissioners have asked Wheeler to delay the vote to allow more time for review. The changes would allow the commission to regulate the Internet like a public utility, setting new standards that require the provision of equal access to all online content.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414380/fcc-chair-refuses-testify-congress-ahead-net-neutrality-vote-andrew-johnson

 

President Obama Urges FCC to Implement Stronger Net Neutrality Rules

President Obama today asked the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take up the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality, the principle that says Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all internet traffic equally.

The President has been a strong and consistent advocate of net neutrality since his first presidential campaign.

President Obama’s plan would reclassify consumer broadband services under what’s known as Title II of the Telecommunications Act. It would serve as a “basic acknowledgement of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone – not just one or two companies.”

The plan involves four commonsense steps that some service providers already observe:

No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player—not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.

No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling”—based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.

Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.

No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

Ultimately, the FCC is an independent agency and the decision is theirs alone. But President Obama believes his plan is the best way to safeguard the incredible resource the Internet has become for all of us — so that an entrepreneur’s fledgling company has the same chance to succeed as established corporation’s, and so that access to a high school student’s blog isn’t unfairly slowed down to make way for advertisers with more money.

Nearly 4 million public comments were submitted to the FCC as part of the latest comment period, with overwhelming support for the principles the President is calling for.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2014/11/10/president-obama-urges-fcc-implement-stronger-net-neutrality-rules

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422 

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who Will Be Obama’s Chief of News Police? News Czar — Creepy Tyranny! — Videos

Posted on February 20, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Climate, College, Communications, Constitution, Crime, Education, Employment, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 213: February 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 212: February 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 211: February 14, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 210: February 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 209: February 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 208: February 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 207: February 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 206: February 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 205: February 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 204: February 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 203: February 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 202: January 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 201: January 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 200: January 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 199: January 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 198: January 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 197: January 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 196: January 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 195: January 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 194: January 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 193: January 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 192: January 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 191: January 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 190: January 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 189: January 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 188: January 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 187: January 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 186: January 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-213

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Story 1: Who Will Be Obama’s Chief of News Police? News Czar — Creepy Tyranny! — Videos

fcc0

censorship_press stop_asking_questions_freedom_of_the_press_obama_style

Freedom of the press or tyranny

freedom_of_the_press

Greta Van Interviews FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai – ” Government Doesn’t Have a Place in the Newsroom “

FCC newsroom study

Krauthammer’s Take: FCC Newsroom Study Latest Effort ‘to Trample on What Rights are Remaining’

FCC Plan For Newsroom Monitors Sparks Constitutional Concern – Wake Up America – America’

Obama’s News Police – WH Pushes FCC To Install Newsroom Spies – Attack On First Amendment

U.S. Plunges in Global Press Freedom Rankings As Obama Wages War on Whistleblowers

The FCC Wades Into the Newsroom

Why is the agency studying ‘perceived station bias’ and asking about coverage choices?

News organizations often disagree about what Americans need to know. MSNBC, for example, apparently believes that traffic in Fort Lee, N.J., is the crisis of our time. Fox News, on the other hand, chooses to cover the September 2012 attacks on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi more heavily than other networks. The American people, for their part, disagree about what they want to watch.

But everyone should agree on this: The government has no place pressuring media organizations into covering certain stories.

Unfortunately, the Federal Communications Commission, where I am a commissioner, does not agree. Last May the FCC proposed an initiative to thrust the federal government into newsrooms across the country. With its “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs,” or CIN, the agency plans to send researchers to grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run. A field test in Columbia, S.C., is scheduled to begin this spring.

The purpose of the CIN, according to the FCC, is to ferret out information from television and radio broadcasters about “the process by which stories are selected” and how often stations cover “critical information needs,” along with “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

How does the FCC plan to dig up all that information? First, the agency selected eight categories of “critical information” such as the “environment” and “economic opportunities,” that it believes local newscasters should cover. It plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their “news philosophy” and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.

The FCC also wants to wade into office politics. One question for reporters is: “Have you ever suggested coverage of what you consider a story with critical information for your customers that was rejected by management?” Follow-up questions ask for specifics about how editorial discretion is exercised, as well as the reasoning behind the decisions.

Participation in the Critical Information Needs study is voluntary—in theory. Unlike the opinion surveys that Americans see on a daily basis and either answer or not, as they wish, the FCC’s queries may be hard for the broadcasters to ignore. They would be out of business without an FCC license, which must be renewed every eight years.

This is not the first time the agency has meddled in news coverage. Before Critical Information Needs, there was the FCC’s now-defunct Fairness Doctrine, which began in 1949 and required equal time for contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues. Though the Fairness Doctrine ostensibly aimed to increase the diversity of thought on the airwaves, many stations simply chose to ignore controversial topics altogether, rather than air unwanted content that might cause listeners to change the channel.

The Fairness Doctrine was controversial and led to lawsuits throughout the 1960s and ’70s that argued it infringed upon the freedom of the press. The FCC finally stopped enforcing the policy in 1987, acknowledging that it did not serve the public interest. In 2011 the agency officially took it off the books. But the demise of the Fairness Doctrine has not deterred proponents of newsroom policing, and the CIN study is a first step down the same dangerous path.

The FCC says the study is merely an objective fact-finding mission. The results will inform a report that the FCC must submit to Congress every three years on eliminating barriers to entry for entrepreneurs and small businesses in the communications industry.

This claim is peculiar. How can the news judgments made by editors and station managers impede small businesses from entering the broadcast industry? And why does the CIN study include newspapers when the FCC has no authority to regulate print media?

Should all stations follow MSNBC’s example and cut away from a discussion with a former congresswoman about the National Security Agency’s collection of phone records to offer live coverage of Justin Bieber‘s bond hearing? As a consumer of news, I have an opinion. But my opinion shouldn’t matter more than anyone else’s merely because I happen to work at the FCC.

Mr. Pai is a commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304680904579366903828260732

Why the FCC should keep its nose out of TV newsrooms

By 

What on earth is the FCC thinking?

The last thing we need is the government mucking around with news content.

The title of this Big Brother-ish effort by the Federal Communications Commission sounds innocuous enough: “Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs.” But it’s a Trojan horse that puts federal officials in the newsroom, precisely where they shouldn’t be.

Don’t take my word for it. The FCC says it wants to examine “the process by which stories are selected,” as well as “perceived station bias” and “perceived responsiveness to underserved populations.”

Perceived station bias? Are you kidding me? Government bureaucrats are going to decide whether a newsroom is being fair?

Keep in mind that the commission has the power to renew or reject broadcast television licenses. During Watergate, Richard Nixon’s FCC challenged two TV licenses of stations owned by the Washington Post. So mere information gathering can become a little more serious, given that enormous clout.

As FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai notes in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, the commission “plans to ask station managers, news directors, journalists, television anchors and on-air reporters to tell the government about their ‘news philosophy’ and how the station ensures that the community gets critical information.” The first test is slated for this spring in Columbia, S.C.

I know that television stations are licensed in the public interest. It’s fair for the FCC to examine how much news a station offers, as opposed to lucrative game shows and syndicated reruns. But the content of that news ought to be off-limits.

The Fairness Doctrine, which once required TV and radio stations to offer equal time for opposing points of view, is no more, and good riddance (since it discouraged stations from taking a stand on much of anything). The Obama administration swears it’s not coming back.

How, then, to explain this incursion into the substance of journalism, which seems utterly at odds with the notion of a free and unfettered press?

Now some of the commentary about this is overheated, with talk of an FCC “thought police” and so on. The effort is beginning in a single city. But already there are signs that the commission is backing off.

Adweek reports that “controversial” sections of the study will be “revisited” under new chairman Tom Wheeler. An FCC official told the publication that the agency “has no intention of interfering in the coverage and editorial choices that journalists make. We’re closely reviewing the proposed research design to determine if an alternative approach is merited.”

The FCC should keep its alternative approaches to itself, as even the posing of these questions carries an intimidation factor. The government has no business meddling in how journalism is practiced. And if George W. Bush’s FCC had tried this, it would be a front-page story.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/why-fcc-should-keep-its-nose-out-tv-newsrooms/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

FCC Debates Net Neutrality–Videos

Posted on October 23, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Economics, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Law, liberty, Links, People, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

“In all countries with a settled bureaucracy people used to say: The cabinets come and go, but the bureaus remain.”

“Only to bureaucrats can the idea occur that establishing new offices, promulgating new decrees, and increasing the number of government employees alone can be described as positive and beneficial measures.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

FCC Approves Proposed Net Neutrality Rules

 

FCC Debates Net Neutrality -Full video

 

The Communicators: Net Neutrality

 

Mike McCurry on Net Neutrality

 

Paul Misener of Amazon.com on net neutrality

 

Q & A: Faceoff between Mike McCurry and Paul Misener

 

More government regulation and intervention into the economy is the problem not the solution.

The government is attempting to screw the consumer in the name of protecting them from the big bad Internet Service Prodivers or ISPs.

We are from the government and are here to protect you.

Really?

Go take a hike. 

Promote competition and investment in the internet or broadband deployment and cut government spending and regulation–abolish  the Federal Communications Commission.

The Progressive Radical Socialists are all on the side of network neutrality.

Network neutrality is the hostile takeover of the internet by government regulations.

The Progressive Radical Socialists are true believers in government command and control.

I trust private companies before I would even consider trusting the integrity of the government.

Time for the American people to wake up and speak up.

“Capitalism means free enterprise, sovereignty of the consumers in economic matters, and sovereignty of the voters in political matters. Socialism means full government control of every sphere of the individuals life and the unrestricted supremacy of the government in its capacity as central board of production management.”

“Tyranny is the political corollary of socialism, as representative government is the political corollary of the market economy.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

Background Articles and Videos

The Essential Guide to Network Neutrality

A guide to the future of Internet services and the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

By John Edwards

“…The Case Against Network Neutrality

The nation’s largest ISPs, including AT&T, Time Warner, Verizon, Cox Communications Inc. and Comcast, are the strongest network-neutrality opponents. Yet these firms steadfastly deny that they are trying to hijack the Internet, as some as their critics claim.

The ISPs insist that their primary interest is simply to ensure better and more reliable service by prioritizing content to meet their customers’ needs. They also state that their actions are essential to comprehensive Internet security; they must prevent outlaw services from taking advantage of customers through illegal Net activities, such as phishing sites and intellectual-property-robbing peer-to-peer file-sharing services. Many neutrality opponents also believe they should be able to charge Web-site operators, especially high-bandwidth services like video streamers, for the right to use the ISP’s portion of the network, which feeds content directly to customers.

Neutrality opponents assert that any government measures directed at promoting a so-called “even playing field” would unnecessarily meddle with Net activities and, in effect, place the government in charge of critical aspects of the Web’s design and operation. Such interference, opponents claim, would stifle Internet growth, hinder the roll out of broadband access and tilt the market toward businesses that use the most bandwidth yet pay the least for network costs within a neutral environment.

The Case for Network Neutrality

Supporters of network neutrality include the businesses that have the most to gain from a neutral Internet — companies such as Amazon.com, Google, Yahoo! Inc., Microsoft and Facebook. Also backing the cause are the editorial boards of several major newspapers, including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and San Jose Mercury News. Organizations such as the American Library Association, Gun Owners of America, Christian Coalition of America and Consumers Union, as well as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, are also carrying the “free Internet” banner.

Network-neutrality proponents claim that rather than protecting their customers’ interests, ISPs are trying to squash competition in order to benefit their own Internet services, including email, IP telephony, search technology, news and information content aggregation, classified advertising, and social networking. They argue that by attempting to monopolize both access and content, such firms are essentially “double-dipping.”

According to network-neutrality advocates, the loss of a free and open Internet would lead to less innovation, since individuals and small startups buckle under new service and cost restrictions imposed by ISPs. The biggest losers in this situation will be consumers, who will inevitably face fewer service choices and higher fees, argue neutrality supporters. The national business and financial climate will also suffer, they allege, as Internet innovation and growth slows. …”

http://www.voip-news.com/feature/guide-network-neutrality-030508/

Sector to Watch – Internet

 

FCC Net Neutrality: Arbitrary and Capricious?

 

FCC Commissioner on Net Neutrality

 

Oracle Chief Opposes Net Neutrality


 

Internet Regulation – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

 

Net neutrality: Necessary or necessary evil?


 

Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-1/2

 

Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-2/2

 

“Preserving a Free and Open Internet: A Platform for Innovation, Opportunity, and Prosperity”

 

Gov 2.0 Summit 09: Julius Genachowski, “Broadband as Platform”

 

Genachowski Says AT&T Move Doesnt End Need for Web Rule: Video

 

Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality

 

CTO Aneesh Chopra on net neutrality

 

C-SPAN’s Communicators with CTO Aneesh Chopra

 

Anti-Net Neutrality Propiganda Ad

 

Net Neutrality – Plain English

 

DN! Net Neutrality (1\2)

 

DN! Net Neutrality (2\2)

 

Net Neutrality

 

Anti-Net Neutrality Propiganda Ad

 

Net Neutrality – Plain English

 

Google Violates Motto Debate: Jim Harper (3 of 13)

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Network Neurtrality–FCC Julius Genachowski–Tim Wu–Free and Open Internet Or Slow and Stupid Internet?

Robert W. McChesney–Videos

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar, and Cass Sustein, Regulatory Czar: Progressive Radical Socialist Silencing of Free Speech On Internet Blogs and Talk Radio

Susan P. Crawford–Videos

Tim Wu–Videos

Beck and Hannity Expose Corrupt Ethics Waived Slumlord Valerie Jarrett–Senior Advisor, Olympics Czar and Close Friend of President Barack Obama–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party’s Propaganda War On Freedom of Speech

Anita Dunn–White House Communications Director–Exposed By Beck As Mao Tse-Tung Admirer On Video!

Fox’s Glenn Beck Installs Hotline to Narcissist Obama–Beck Continues To Be Obama’s Narcissistic Supplier!

Fox News Scares Narcissist Obama–Mirror Mirror Mirror On The Wall Who Is The Fairest Of Them All–Sarah Palin–Obama Attacks Mirror!

Obama’s Socialist Mopster Red Bucket Brigade for The Rockefeller and Soros Agenda of World Socialist Government–A New World Order!

Fox News Scares Narcissist Obama–Mirror Mirror Mirror On The Wall Who Is The Fairest Of Them All–Sarah Palin–Obama Attacks Mirror!

Sam Vaknin–Videos

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)–Videos

Barack Obama Cult?

Jim Jones–Cult of Personality–The Tragedy of Jonestown–Videos

There Are No Coincidences: Three Progressive Presidents Won The Nobel Peace Prize–Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama–Narcissistic Personality Disorder!

Change You Can Count On: The 2,000,000,000 Health Care Plan Requires Massive Tax Increases and Huge Cuts In Medicare Reimbursement for Doctors and Hospitals!

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos 

President Barack Obama Puppet of Trilateral Commission?–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos 

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Black Genocide–Eugenics–Planned Parenthood–Population Control–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

Soros Funded and Obama’s Manufactured Hate Generator–The Southern Poverty Law Center–Disinformation Propaganda Campaign 

Change You Can Count On: The $2,000,000,000 Health Care Plan Requires Massive Tax Increases and Huge Cuts In Medicare Reimbursement for Doctors and Hospitals!

Second Opinion: Doctors Speak Up On Proposed Health Care Reform–And A Third Texas Opinion!–Videos

Republican Health Care Reform: The Patients’ Choice Act

Medical Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn On Health Care–Videos

The Senate Doctors Show–Videos

Obama’s Waterloo– Government Compulsory Single Payer Socialized Medicine!–Videos

President Obama’s Plan of Massive Deficit Spending Is Destroying The US Economy–The American People Say Stop Socialism BS Now!

The Bum’s Rush of The American People: The Totally Irresponsible Democratic Party Health Care Bill and Obama’s Big Lie Exposed

Chairman Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Bill Kills Individual Private Health Care Insurance–Join The Second American Revolution!

The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA!

The Obama Public Option Poison Pill For A Government Health Care Monopoly–Single Payer System–Betting Your Life and Paying Though The Nose

Government Bureaucracy: Organizational Chart of The House Democrats’ Health Plan

Dr. Robert W. Christensen–Videos

John Stossel–Sick In America–Videos 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Network Neutrality–FCC Julius Genachowski–Tim Wu–Free and Open Internet Or Slow and Stupid Internet?

Posted on October 8, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Economics, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Technology, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

 “Manufacturing and commercial monopolies owe their origin not to a tendency imminent in a capitalist economy but to governmental interventionist policy directed against free trade and laissez faire.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

“If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion”

~Friedrich A. Hayek

 

Net Neutrality – PBS NOW Part 1/2

 

Net Neutrality – PBS NOW Part 2/2

 

FCC Net Neutrality: Arbitrary and Capricious?

 

FCC Commissioner on Net Neutrality

 

Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-1/2

 

Lawrence Lessig on Net Neutrality and Google-2/2

 

Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality

 

Net neutrality: Necessary or necessary evil?

 

Tim Wu on the Innovation Cycle

 

SavetheInternet.com on the Hill: Tim Wu’s Statement

 

Tim Wu on Network Neutrality

 

Tim Wu, Politics Online Conference March 2008

 

What is “Net Neutrality?”

 

The Communicators: Reactions to FCC’s Net Neutrality Proposal

 

FCC To Push ‘Net Neutrality’ – Bloomberg

 

Genachowski Says AT&T Move Doesnt End Need for Web Rule: Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhqzQkJTc5M

 

Rep. Waxman Pledges Support for Net Neutrality

 

President Obama pledges support for the open Internet

Barack Obama on Net Neutrality

 

The Communicators: Net Neutrality

 

Barack Obama: On Net Neutrality

 

Jay Rockefeller: Internet should have never existed

 

Obama Wants Internet Control 52909–LibertyUnderFire.org

 

Obama Wants Control of the Internet

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 1

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 2

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 3

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 4

 

Politics Online 2008 – Broadband Strategy, part 5

 

InternetforEveryone.org Launch

 

I am all for increased competition in any market place for goods and services.

Competition usually results in less expensive and better quality goods and services and innovation in the goods and services offered.

Government regulation or intervention in the marketplace usually has the unintended consequence of decreasing competition and innovation resulting in higher prices and lower quality.

Therefore, I am opposed to network neutrality.

Let the consumers decide what they want and how much, if anything, they are willing to pay for products and services including internet or broadband access and speed.

Consumer sovereignity should trump more government regulations.

Network neutrality is really a codeword for more government regulation and intervention into the marketplace for internet and communication services.

Let competitors, the profit motive and the marketplace alone.

Let the content providers and broadband carriers settle their differences free of government intervention and regulation of the internet.

Seriously consider abolishing the Federal Communications Commission like we finally did with the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Government intervention and regulation are the big problem.

Capitalism is the solution.

Internet Regulation – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

 

The Resurgence of Big Government – Ayn Rand Center – 1 of 2

 

The Resurgence of Big Government – Ayn Rand Center – 2 of 2

 

Yaron Brook’s Call to Action – March 2009 (Part 1 of 2)

 

Yaron Brook’s Call to Action – March 2009 (Part 2 of 2)

 

“A government that sets out to abolish market prices is inevitably driven toward the abolition of private property; it has to recognize that there is no middle way between the system of private property in the means of production combined with free contract, and the system of common ownership of the means of production, or socialism. It is gradually forced toward compulsory production, universal obligation to labor, rationing of consumption, and, finally, official regulation of the whole of production and consumption.”

~Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, page 281.

 

 “To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.”

~Friedrich A. Hayek

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Neutering the ‘Net

The real agenda of Google, Amazon, Microsoft and other status-quo web powers behind the Obama administration’s Net Neutrality campaign.

“…The mask really slipped earlier this year when Time Warner Cable began experimenting with usage-based pricing to protect the average broadband customers from the 20% of users who create 80% of the traffic. A lobby called Free Press, the most extreme of the pro-net neutrality interests, went ballistic, calling metered pricing a “price-gouging scheme” and backing a bill in Congress to ban it.

Never mind that Free Press had previously argued just the opposite, saying usage-based pricing was a fairer way to deal with congestion than, say, by selectively slowing down file-sharing sites that gobble up disproportionate broadband capacity.

Never mind, too, the irony that the net-neut campaign against the selective slowing of non-urgent traffic has left only differential pricing as a way to bring a modicum of efficiency to network usage.

Here’s where the real fight begins. Google has been one of the most influential net-neut proponents. It recently secreted its top lobbyist, Andrew McLaughlin, into a White House job as deputy head of telecom policy. But Google also understands, as its chief Eric Schmidt recently put it, “It’s very, very important that the telecom operators have enough capital to continue the build-outs.”

Google’s trick will be to lobby for the optimum of Internet socialism—”tiered” pricing may be OK, in which some consumers pay extra for a bigger pipe. But usage-based pricing that would give consumers a reason to think twice before clicking on a Google-sponsored ad? It would be the end of Google’s business model.

And Google has allies. The greatest fear of Microsoft, Amazon, eBay and Yahoo is having to plumb their deep pockets and offer competing payments to broadband carriers to speed their bits to consumers. They much prefer spending their money to sprinkle server farms around the globe, assuring fast, reliable access for their customers in a way that no newcomer can easily replicate. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574429030182627044.html

 

The Durable Internet: Preserving Network Neutrality without Regulation

by Timothy B. Lee

“…In recent years, self-styled “network neutrality” activists have pushed for legislation to prevent network owners from undermining the end-to end principle. Although the concern is understandable, such legislation would be premature. Physical ownership of internet infrastructure does not translate into a practical ability to control its use. Regulations are unnecessary because even in the absence of robust broadband competition, network owners are likely to find deviations from the end-to-end principle unprofitable.

New regulations inevitably come with unintended consequences. Indeed, today’s network neutrality debate is strikingly similar to the debate that produced the first modern regulatory agency, the Interstate Commerce Commission. Unfortunately, rather than protecting consumers from the railroads, the ICC protected the railroads from competition by erecting new barriers to entry in the surface transportation marketplace. Other 20th-century regulatory agencies also limited competition in the industries they regulated. Like these older regulatory regimes, network neutrality regulations are likely not to achieve their intended aims. Given the need for more competition in the broadband marketplace, policymakers should be especially wary of enacting regulations that could become a barrier to entry for new broadband firms. …”

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775

 

Net Neutrality or Government Brutality?

“…Generally speaking, net neutrality is the notion that all content, applications, and services should be treated the same by Internet service providers (ISPs). Net-neutrality proponents fear that network operators might someday discriminate against certain types of information by charging fees to particular content providers in exchange for guarantees of higher-quality service or by blocking some content completely.

Such a proposal may sound innocuous enough, but the problem is that the proliferation of things like streaming video and online gaming are taking up increasingly large amounts of bandwidth and are sensitive to delay. This Internet congestion can lead to the degradation of service for all Internet users. Slight delays may hardly be noticeable in e-mail or web-browser applications, but can be more serious for video-content providers or Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), which allows people to make phone calls over the Internet.

Then there is the question whether the government has any right to tell ISPs how to manage their own networks and pricing structures, which will be discussed in some detail below. …”

“…While network-neutrality advocates claim to want to ensure fairness and competition, the government regulation they propose will result in anything but those things. In the free market, competition ensures that customers receive the services they demand. Government control, by contrast, ensures that they receive whatever services the politicians and bureaucrats in power at the time deem appropriate (not to mention the inevitable and endless litigation about who could offer what services when and for how much).

The concept of the “tiered” Internet is not something to be feared. On the contrary, it could be a means of enhancing services to broadband customers, providing revenue for ISPs to invest in accommodating increasing demand for bandwidth-intensive and delay-sensitive applications and making further improvements to data delivery, and of increasing fairness by ensuring that content providers responsible for the most Internet congestion pay the higher costs of assuring a high quality of service for Internet users. Choking off this potential revenue stream through net-neutrality mandates will only ensure that instead of an Internet with regular lanes and “fast lanes,” all consumers will be stuck in the slow lane.”

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/net-neutrality-or-government-brutality/

 

Network Neutrality

“…Network neutrality (also net neutrality, Internet neutrality) is a principle proposed for residential broadband networks and potentially for all networks. A neutral broadband network is one that is free of restrictions on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as one where communication is not unreasonably degraded by other communication streams.[1][2][3]

The principle states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for a given level of access, that the two users should be able to connect to each other at that given rate of access.

Though the term did not enter popular use until several years later, since the early 2000s advocates of net neutrality and associated rules have raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, protocols); particularly those of competitors. In the US particularly, but elsewhere as well, the possibility of regulations designed to mandate the neutrality of the Internet has been subject to fierce debate.

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[4] Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the web, and many others have spoken out strongly in favor of network neutrality.

Opponents of net neutrality include large hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries. Critics characterised net neutrality regulation as “a solution in search of a problem”, arguing that broadband service providers have no plans to block content or degrade network performance.[5] In spite of this claim, certain Internet service providers (such as Comcast) have intentionally slowed peer-to-peer (P2P) communications. Others have done exactly the opposite of what Telecom spokespersons claim and have begun to use deep packet inspection to discriminate against P2P, FTP and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom “value added” services, and anti-competitive tying (“bundling”).[6] Critics also argue that data discrimination of some kinds, particularly to guarantee quality of service, is not problematic, but highly desirable. Bob Kahn, Internet Protocol’s co-inventor, has called “net neutrality” a slogan, and states that he opposes establishing it, warning that “nothing interesting can happen inside the net” if it passes: “If the goal is to encourage people to build new capabilities, then the party that takes the lead in building that new capability, is probably only going to have it on their net to start with and it is probably not going to be on anybody else’s net.” However, he also said “by virtue of doing that, you tend to fragment the net. And anything that will tend to fragment the net I’m opposed to, provided it’s not an incremental evolution of a new technology that’s happening.” [7] 

 

…”

 

Net Neutrality Means an Unfree, Slow, and ‘Stupid’ Internet

Posted by Raymond C. Niles

“…The advocates of net neutrality claim they are seeking to preserve a “free” and “open” Internet and to prohibit the “unfair” policies of Internet service providers that favor some content over others. According to them, to preserve this openness and freedom, the FCC must be granted vastly greater powers to coercively determine the business practices of Internet service providers.

That claim, however, is a sham.

An “open” and “free” Internet cannot be achieved by means of further FCC regulations. Extending FCC controls to the wireless spectrum would not “open” anything or free anyone; rather it would further violate the rights of Americans to produce and trade according to their own judgment and thus thwart this vital new realm of life-serving technology. It would unleash a torrent of government control over every aspect of the Internet, granting the  government power to dictate how content is to be delivered and at what price, making it less profitable for Internet service providers to invest in costly infrastructure, and thereby quashing their incentive to innovate. …”

http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/labels/Business%20and%20Economics.asp#Net%20Neutrality%20Means%20an%20Unfree,%20Slow,%20and%20’Stupid’%20Internet

 

Net Neutrality: Toward a Stupid Internet

“…Much could be said about the stupidity of net neutrality. But, setting aside the fact that it will thwart competition and retard the Internet, we must recognize first and foremost that net neutrality violates the rights of private property owners—specifically Internet service providers. The fact that Internet access is a profound value does not justify government force against the ISPs that make it possible, any more than the fact that books are a profound value justifies government involvement in Barnes and Noble’s pricing, displaying, and stocking of books. The property of Internet service providers is theirs; as such, they have the moral right to use and dispose of it as they please, regardless of what their customers, FCC bureaucrats, and net neutrality advocates have to say about it.

Unfortunately, net neutrality is a small part of a wider effort to erode property rights in America. As with eminent domain, zoning laws, and the like, net neutrality holds that it is moral to violate the rights of property owners for the “greater good.” Net neutrality holds that the benefit of a “neutral” Internet to all of its users justifies the use of force against those who own and maintain its backbone. It does not.

America morally must recognize the rights of Internet service providers to manage their property as they see fit. We must undo the relatively few controls already placed on the Internet, repudiate net neutrality, and keep the government’s stupid hands off this brilliant private property.

 http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2008-winter/net-neutrality.asp

 

New FCC Chairman Targets internet

By James G. Lakely

  “…Genachowski is attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, which he plainly admitted by stating his goal is to “preserve” the freedom and openness of today’s Internet.

 

Rare instances of unfair discrimination — such as ISPs favoring certain content because of joint business ventures — are sufficiently addressed by market forces. Customers who are dissatisfied with their service can freely choose a competitor. The financial incentive to please the maximum number of people is how markets enforce best practices, and that principle applies to ISPs as well.

 

The new chairman said, “this is not about government regulation of the Internet,” and he did it with a straight face. But this is all about government regulation of the Internet, coming from an agency with a proven record of regulatory failure and abuse of power.

 

Americans should have little faith in Genachowski’s pledge the FCC “will do as much as we need to do, and no more” when regulating the Internet. When you don’t “know what tomorrow holds on the Internet,” how can you be sure the regulatory lines will be drawn so perfectly?

 

Answer: You can’t. But it’s clear what awaits us if the FCC moves forward with the chairman’s plans: less freedom, less investment, less innovation.”
 
 

Julius Genachowski

“…Julius Genachowski (born August 19, 1962) is an American lawyer and businessman. He became Federal Communications Commission Chairman on June 29, 2009.[1]

“…Genachowski grew up in Great Neck, New York and received his B.A. in history in 1985 magna cum laude, from Columbia College, Columbia University, where he was an editor of the Columbia Daily Spectator. He received his J.D. in 1991 from Harvard Law School, where he was a notes editor at the Harvard Law Review[2] when it was headed by Barack Obama, who graduated in the same year. After graduating from Harvard, also magna cum laude, Genachowski clerked for the Honorable Abner J. Mikva on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and then at the U.S. Supreme Court for two years, for Justices William J. Brennan and David Souter.[3]

“…He worked on the select committee investigating the Iran-Contra Affair and for U.S. Representative (now Senator) Chuck Schumer.[4] He was Chief Counsel to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt, a position he left in 1996 to go into business.

Genachowski was Chief of Business Operations and a member of Barry Diller’s Office of the Chairman at IAC/InterActiveCorp. He had previously served on the Boards of Directors of Expedia, Hotels.com and Ticketmaster.[2]

He is a co-founder of LaunchBox Digital and Rock Creek Ventures.[3] He is also a special advisor at General Atlantic and a member of the Boards of Directors at The Motley Fool, Web.com, Mark Ecko Enterprises, and Beliefnet.[3] He was appointed to the board of JackBe in April 2006. [5]

Genachowski serves as a board member of Common Sense Media, a leading organization seeking to improve the media lives of children and families; and as an advisory board member of Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2). He also recently helped found the New Resource Bank, the country’s first commercial “green bank.”[2] …”

“…For the Obama 2008 Presidential Campaign, Genachowski was Chairman of the Technology, Media and Telecommunications policy working group that created the Obama Technology and Innovation Plan.[6] He also advised and guided the Obama campaign’s innovative use of technology and the Internet for grassroots engagement and participation.

He co-led the Technology, Innovation, and Government Reform Group for president-elect Barack Obama’s presidential transition team.[7] On January 12, 2009, several news outlets reported that Genachowski would be President-Elect Obama’s choice to head the Federal Communications Commission as Chairman. This was confirmed by a press release on March 3, 2009. [8] …”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKib8xMu9TY&feature=PlayList&p=488946669A5E518E&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=13

 

Julius Genachowski

http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/genachowski/

 

 Federal Communications Commission

http://www.fcc.gov/

 

Free Press

“…Free Press is a non-partisan media advocacy organization, and by membership the largest such organization in the United States.[citation needed] It was founded by media critic Robert W. McChesney, journalist John Nichols and current executive director Josh Silver. The current chair of Free Press is Columbia Professor Tim Wu. In the 2000s, Free Press has grown into among the most prominent organizations criticizing media consolidation and defending network neutrality. It has a membership of over 500,000, making it in membership terms the largest media advocacy group in the United States.[1] …”

Free Press’ aim is to increase the public’s stake in the debate of appropriate media policy with the goal of creating a more competitive media landscape and promoting a media system more friendly to the public interest. In the period from 2002-2008, Free Press was one of the leading organizations in the Save the Internet campaign and the Stop Big Media coalition. Free Press is also the organizer of the large annual National Conference for Media Reform.

Free Press employs a full time lobbying staff in Washington, D.C. Free Press’ senior lobbyist, Ben Scott, has been described as a “driving force for ‘net neutrality.'” [1]

Free Press

http://www.freepress.net/

 

Tim Wu

“…Tim Wu (traditional Chinese: 吳修銘) is a professor at Columbia Law School, the chair of media reform group Free Press, and a writer for Slate Magazine.[1] He is best known for popularizing the concept of network neutrality in his paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper considered network neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and Quality of Service-sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues.[2][3]

Wu’s academic specialties are copyright and telecommunications policy. For his work in this area, Professor Wu was named one of Scientific American’s 50 people of the year in 2006. In 2007 Wu was named one of Harvard University’s 100 most influential graduates by 02138 magazine.[4]

“…

In 2003, Wu contributed to the Howard Dean and John Edwards presidential campaigns.[10] During 2008, Wu served as an adviser to the Barack Obama presidential campaign.[11] …”

“…Wu is credited with popularizing the concept of network neutrality in his 2003 paper Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination. The paper considered network neutrality in terms of neutrality between applications, as well as neutrality between data and Quality of Service-sensitive traffic, and proposed some legislation to potentially deal with these issues.[2][12]

In 2006, Wu wrote “The World Trade Law of Internet Filtering”, which analyzed the possibility of the World Trade Organization treating censorship as a barrier to trade.[13] In June 2007, when Google Inc. lobbied the United States Trade Representative to pursue a complaint against China’s censorship at the WTO, Wu’s paper was cited as a “likely source” for this idea.[14] In 2006 Wu was also invited by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to help draft the first network neutrality rules attached to the AT&T and BellSouth merger.[15]

In 2007, Wu published a paper proposing a “Wireless Carterfone” rule for mobile phone networks[16]; the rule was adopted by the Federal Communications Commission for the 700 MHz spectrum auctions on July 31, 2007, with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stating: “I find it extremely heartening to see that an academic paper—in this case by Professor Timothy Wu of Columbia Law School—can have such an immediate and forceful influence on policy.”[17] In November 2007 BusinessWeek credited Wu with providing “the intellectual framework that inspired Google’s mobile phone strategy.”[18]

With his Columbia Law School colleagues Professors Scott Hemphill and Clarisa Long, Wu co-directs the Columbia Law School Program on Law and Technology, founded in 2007.[19][20] In August 2007, in collaboration with the University of Colorado School of Law’s Silicon Flatirons Program, the Columbia Law School Program on Law and Technology launched a Beta version of AltLaw, which he produced.[21] …”

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

 

Obama Announces White House Internet Team

“…The White House press shop already made a wave, at least by Washington standards, when President Obama called on The Huffington Post at his first press conference. On a recent White House conference call for progressive bloggers, one new media aide said that calling on bloggers at presidential press conferences could be a “new tradition.”

Staff Information from Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

 

Macon Phillips, Director of New Media 

Since the election, Phillips has served as Director of New Media for the Presidential Transition Team, developing Change.gov and overseeing the transition’s overall online communications. Prior to that, he served as the Deputy Director of New Media for Obama for America, managing the day to day operations of the campaign’s online program. Before the campaign, Macon led Blue State Digital’s strategy practice, working with clients like the Democratic National Committee and Senator Ted Kennedy.

Cammie Croft, Deputy New Media Director

Croft comes to the White House from the Obama-Biden Transition Project, where she served as the Deputy New Media Director, specializing in online communications. Prior to that, as the New Media Rapid Response Manager for the Obama for America campaign, she oversaw efforts to integrate new media and communications, including managing websites such as FighttheSmears.com and UndertheRadar.com. Before joining the campaign, Croft built the tracking and media monitoring program at Progressive Accountability, a rapid-response communications advocacy campaign that provided video of Republican Presidential candidates for the mass public. Croft also worked as the Rapid Response Mobilization Director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, where she led their new media efforts, working with MoveOn.org’s online tools to mobilize Americans opposed to the war. …”

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/410988/obama_announces_white_house_internet_team

 

Obama Announces Members of his Media and Online Team

“…Macon Phillips, Director of New Media

Since the election, Phillips has served as Director of New Media for the Presidential Transition Team, developing Change.gov and overseeing the transition’s overall online communications.  Prior to that, he served as the Deputy Director of New Media for Obama for America, managing the day to day operations of the campaign’s online program.  Before the campaign, Macon led Blue State Digital’s strategy practice, working with clients like the Democratic National Committee and Senator Ted Kennedy.  A native of Huntsville, Alabama, Phillips is a graduate of Duke University and lives with his fiancée in Washington, DC.

Cammie Croft, Deputy New Media Director
 
Croft comes to the White House from the Obama-Biden Transition Project, where she served as the Deputy New Media Director, specializing in online communications.  Prior to that, as the New Media Rapid Response Manager for the Obama for America campaign, she oversaw efforts to integrate new media and communications, including managing websites such as FighttheSmears.com and UndertheRadar.com.  Before joining the campaign, Croft built the tracking and media monitoring program at Progressive Accountability, a rapid-response communications advocacy campaign that provided video of Republican Presidential candidates for the mass public. Croft also worked as the Rapid Response Mobilization Director for Americans Against Escalation in Iraq, where she led their new media efforts, working with MoveOn.org’s online tools to mobilize Americans opposed to the war.  Croft holds a B.A. in Political Science and Communication from the University of Washington in Seattle, where she graduated with distinction. She is also an alumnus of the New Organizing Institute (NOI), a unique online organizing forum for technologically-savvy, progressive campaigners.  …”

 

 

  

 
 

 

Capitalism

“…Capitalism typically refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production (also known as capital) are privately controlled; labor, goods and capital are traded in a market; profits are distributed to owners or invested in new technologies and industries; and wages are paid to labor.

Capitalism is based on the premises of laissez faire, where private individuals are free to exchange goods or services without intervention from the State, hence the term “free market.”[1] The extent to which different markets are free, as well as rules determining what may and may not be private property, is a matter of politics and policy and many states have what are termed “mixed economies.”[2] Mixed economies refer to capitalism being mixed with central planning or statism, with statism being the ideological opposite of capitalism. [3] Scholars in the social sciences, including historians, economic sociologists, economists, anthropologists and philosophers have debated over how to define capitalism, however there is little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, paid employment, and prices and wages set according to market supply and demand, are elements of capitalism.[4]

Capitalism as a system developed incrementally from the 16th century in Europe, although capitalist organization existed in the ancient world, and early aspects of merchant capitalism flourished during the Late Middle Ages.[5][6][7] Capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.[7] Capitalism gradually spread throughout Europe, and in the 19th and 20th centuries, it provided the main means of industrialization throughout much of the world.[8]

There is no consensus on capitalism nor how it should be used as an analytical category.[9] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[8] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism.

Economists usually put emphasis on the market mechanism, degree of government control over markets (laissez faire), and property rights[10][11], while most political economists emphasize private property, power relations, wage labor, and class.[2] While there is a general agreement that capitalism encourages economic growth,[12] political advocacy both for and against capitalism is based on many different arguments. …”

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

 

FCC Nominee Julius Genachowski Opposes Fairness Doctrine

 

FCC Nominee Julius Genachowski Opposes Fairness Doctrine

 

Candidates@Google: Barack Obama

Net Neutrality

 

The Truth About Net Neutrality (Part 1/2)

 

The Truth About Net Neutrality (Part 2/2)

 

CWA rally against net neutrality

 

 

 

 

 


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 10 so far )

Robert W. McChesney–Videos

Posted on October 7, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Fiscal Policy, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

 

 mcchesney_robert

Glenn Beck -10-07-09-D

 

Bob McChesney

 

Owner of FreePress talks about media reform

 

Robert McChesney, The Difference Network, Marquette University

 

Media Reform, A Critical Issue of Our Times

 

Robert McChesney – 2008 Fighting Bob Fest


 

Dr. Robert McChesney 11-17-97

 

Democracy Now! Robert McChesney on “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers”

 

Corporate Owned Media-Truth

 

McCain and Obama on Corporate Media

 

Part One: Robert McChesney at NYU

 

Part Two: Robert McChesney at NYU

 

Part Three: Robert McChesney at NYU

 

Part Four: Robert McChesney at NYU

 

Part Five: Robert McChesney at NYU

 

Part Six: Robert McChesney at NYU

 

R. McChesney: Media and Politics in the United States Today

 

Robert McChesney – 2007 Fighting Bob Fest Kickoff

 

 

Robert McChesney on theRealNews pt. 1


 

Robert McChesney on theRealNews pt. 2

 

Dr. Robert McChesney 11-17-97

 

Annenberg Colloquium: The Politics of Media, Technology and Culture

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Robert McChesney

“…

  • Professor at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
  • Founder of the “media reform” organization Free Press
  • Former co-editor of the Marxist journal Monthly Review and a current Director of the tax-exempt Monthly Review Foundation
  • Board member of the Institute for Public Accuracy  …”

“…Robert McChesney is the founder of the “media reform” organization Free Press, and a board member of Norman Solomon’s Institute for Public Accuracy. He is also a former editor and current board member of the Marxist magazine Monthly Review, which has a fifty-year history of supporting Communist movements and regimes.

“…In Professor McChesney’s view, the American media are largely shills for conservatives and the Bush administration, and willing abettors of his unjust wars. As he wrote in 2003:

“What is most striking in the U.S. news coverage following the September 11 attacks of 2001 is how . . .  the very debate over whether to go to war, or how best to respond, did not even exist. Tough questions were ignored. Why should we believe that a militarized approach will be effective? Moving beyond the 9-11 attacks, why should the United States be entitled to determine — as judge, jury, and executioner — who is a terrorist or a terrorist sympathizer in this global war? What about international law? Most conspicuous was the complete absence of comment on one of the most striking features of the war campaign, something that any credible journalist would be quick to observe: . . . There are very powerful interests in the United States who greatly benefit politically and economically by the establishment of an unchecked war on terrorism. This consortium of interests can be called . . . the military-industrial complex. It blossomed during the Cold War when the fear of Soviet imperialism — real or alleged — justified its creation and expansion. A nation with a historically small military now had a permanent war economy, and powerful special interests benefited by its existence.”

In addition to the books he co-authored with John Nichols, McChesney has also penned the following titles: Telecommunications, Mass Media, and Democracy: The Battle for the Control of U.S. Broadcasting, 1928-1935 (1993); Corporate Media and the Threat to Democracy (1997); The Global Media: The New Missionaries of Corporate Capitalism (co-authored with Edward Herman, 1997); Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times (1999); and The Big Picture: Understanding Media Through Political Economy (co-authored with John Bellamy Foster, 2003). McChesney also co-edited (with Ben Scott) the 2004 book Our Unfree Press: 100 Years of Radical Media

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2227 

Robert W. McChesney

“…Robert W. McChesney is an American professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He is the Gutgsell Endowed Professor in the Department of Communication. His work concentrates on the history and political economy of communication, emphasizing the role media play in democratic and capitalist societies. He is the President and co-founder of Free Press, a national media reform organization. McChesney also hosts the “Media Matters” weekly radio program every Sunday afternoon on WILL-AM radio; it is the top-rated program in its time slot in the Champaign-Urbana area.[citation needed]

McChesney has written or edited sixteen books. He has also written some 150 journal articles and book chapters and another 200 newspaper pieces, magazine articles and book reviews. His work has been translated into fourteen languages. Since launching his academic career in the late 1980s, McChesney has made some 500 conference presentations and visiting guest lectures as well as more than 600 radio and television appearances. He has been the subject of more than 70 published profiles and interviews. In 2001 Adbusters Magazine named him one of the “Nine Pioneers of Mental Environmentalism.”

“…Media Matters radio program

Since 2002, Bob McChesney has hosted Media Matters, a call-in radio show broadcast weekly on WILL-AM. Guests such as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Danny Schechter, Seymour Hersh, Norman Solomon, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, and Gore Vidal discuss the relationship between media and American politics and answer questions from callers.[4] Programs and achieves can heard online at http://will.illinois.edu/mediamatters/.

The liberal media watchdog group Media Matters, formed in 2004, changed their name to Media Matters for America to avoid confusion between the two entities.

Media reform and social activism

One of McChesney’s primary interests is media reform. He is the founder and president of Free Press, a national, non-partisan organization dedicated to media reform and democratization. He is a former editor of the socialist Monthly Review, and now a director of the foundation that operates the magazine. McChesney sits on the board of directors of the Institute for Public Accuracy,[3], and is a member of the Liberty Tree Board of Advisers. …” 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_W._McChesney 

Free Press

“…Free Press is a non-partisan media advocacy organization, and by membership the largest such organization in the United States.[citation needed] It was founded by media critic Robert W. McChesney, journalist John Nichols and current executive director Josh Silver. The current chair of Free Press is Columbia Professor Tim Wu. In the 2000s, Free Press has grown into among the most prominent organizations criticizing media consolidation and defending network neutrality. It has a membership of over 500,000, making it in membership terms the largest media advocacy group in the United States.[1] …”

Free Press’ aim is to increase the public’s stake in the debate of appropriate media policy with the goal of creating a more competitive media landscape and promoting a media system more friendly to the public interest. In the period from 2002-2008, Free Press was one of the leading organizations in the Save the Internet campaign and the Stop Big Media coalition. Free Press is also the organizer of the large annual National Conference for Media Reform.

Free Press employs a full time lobbying staff in Washington, D.C. Free Press’ senior lobbyist, Ben Scott, has been described as a “driving force for ‘net neutrality.'” [1]

Free Press

http://www.freepress.net/

 

“Free Press

  • Advocates decentralizing ownership of broadcast media
  • Stages National Conferences on Media Reform

Free Press is a tax-exempt  “media reform” organization co-founded in December 2002 by radical Professor Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, The Nation magazine’s Washington correspondent John Nichols, and campaign-finance-reform advocate Josh Silver. Free Press shares offices, telephones and directors with the non-tax-exempt “social welfare organization” Free Press Action Fund, which openly engages in political lobbying.

One of Free Press’s projects is the staging of conferences. In November 2003, its first National Conference on Media Reform was held at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This media reform conference was keynoted by Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) host Bill Moyers and its star was Amy Goodman, host of the national radio program Democracy Now!  This conference, as reported by Z Magazine, also prominently featured “El Salvador and Palestine solidarity activists” who “gave updates on their work.”

Free Press’s Second National Conference for Media Reform (held May 13-15, 2005) in St. Louis, Missouri featured the following speakers: Medea Benjamin of Global Exchange and Code Pink; David Brock, head of Media Matters for America; Laura Flanders, author and radio host; Bill Fletcher of TransAfrica Forum; Al Franken of Air America Radio; Amy Goodman; Juan Gonzalez of the New York Daily News; Robert Greenwald, Director of the anti-Rupert Murdoch documentary Outfoxed; author and commentator Jim Hightower; Janine Jackson of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting; author and columnist Naomi Klein; George Lakoff, University of California Berkeley professor and Democratic Party advisor; Robert McChesney; John Nichols; and California Congresswoman Diane Watson, a member of the Progressive Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives. …”

“…Board members of the Free Press Action Fund include McChesney; Nichols; Linda Foley, President of the Newspaper Guild/Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO; and Norman Solomon, Executive Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy (IPA), on whose board McChesney sits. Another Free Press Action Fund board member is Cindy Asner, wife of actor Ed Asner. The Asners are activists in Progressive Democrats of America.

Free Press founders McChesney and Nichols have co-authored three books: It’s the Media, Stupid!, Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media, and Tragedy & Farce: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy. The authors and their organization are endorsed by leftist  professor Howard Zinn: “Free Press is doing the important work of stimulating a national discussion on the role of a free media in this country. It deserves widespread support.”

Free Press receives financial support from the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Glaser Progress Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Overbrook Foundation, the Philadelphia Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, the Surdna Foundation, and the Wallace Global Fund. …”

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7103

 

Glenn Beck -10-07-09-A

 

Glenn Beck -10-07-09-B

 

Glenn Beck -10-07-09-C

 

Glenn Beck -10-07-09-E

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Woodrow Wilson–Videos

Liberal Fascism–Jonah Goldberg–Videos

Obama and Clinton Betray Allies and Appease Russia Over Proposed Missile Defense System Against Iranian Missile Nuclear Threat!

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

Keeping Calling The American People Racists–See How Many Racists American Votes You Get Next November!

Barack Obama Cult?

Jim Jones–Cult of Personality–The Tragedy of Jonestown–Videos

Over 2 Million Tea Party Patriots March On Washington D.C.–The Second American Revolution–9/12 Project!

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

American People To American Progressive Liberal Politicians: We The People Know You Are Lying and We Will Throw You Out Of Office!

Obama–Corruption Kingpin–Campaign Contributions and Support for Government Payoffs and Subsidies–Stealing From The American People To Payoff Obama’s Pals

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Obama’s Organized Crime Syndicate: ACORN, CCI, SEIU, TARP, GE, Cap and Trade?–Video Exposé

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

Rush Limbaugh Challenges President Barack Obama to An Open Debate On His Talk Radio Show! 

 

ACORN or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now

Obama’s Association With ACORN –A Corrupt Criminal Enterprise?–Demand A Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) Investigation By An Independent Prosecutor Now!–Videos

Crime–Corruption–Organized Crime–ACORN–Taxes–Obama Connected And Trained

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!

ACORN Or Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now–Good Intentioned People Lead By Criminal Organizers–Demand A Special Prosecutor To Investigate!–Videos

ACORN–Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now–Obama’s Red Shirts

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

 

Apollo Alliance

Apollo Alliance and Obama’s Green Czar Van Jones: Greens on The Outside–Reds On The Inside–Big Greens, Big Unions, Big Foundations, Big Business, Big Bucks, Big Taxes–Videos

 

General Electric

General Electric’s Jeff Immelt Either Unplugs Maddow & Olbermann on MSNBC or Gets Unplugged For Supporting Serial Baby Mass Murderer!

GE–General Electric Plugged Puppet President Pinocchio–P3–Time To Unplug Jeff Immelt and GE!

 

Obama’s  Czars

John Holdren–Science Czar–Videos

John Holdren: Global Warming: What Do We Know and Should Do–Videos 

Barack Obama’s Socialist Green Commissar Carol Browner

Crazy Corrupt Climate Cult Czarina Carol’s Crystal Clear Criminal Communication–Coverup!

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar, and Cass Sustein, Regulatory Czar: Progressive Radical Socialist Silencing of Free Speech On Internet Blogs and Talk Radio

Censorship Commissar for AM and Internet Talk Radio–Henry Waxman–The Face of Progressive Liberal Fascism!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism! 

Beck and Horowitz Expose The Clear and Present Danger of Obama’s Cadre of Czars–Van Jones, John Holdren, Ezekiel Emanuel, Carol Browner, Cass Sunstein, and Mark Lloyd and The Progressive Radical Socialists Of The Democratic Party

ADM Listened–Van Jones Resigned–Why?–Glenn Beck?–No–ADM?–Yes–Ethanol Truther Terminated With Extreme Prejudice!

Beck Confronts President Obama and Valerie Jarrett On Green Jobs Czar Van Jones Communist Organizer and “Truther”!

Green Jobs Czar and Communist Commissar Van Jones: Redistributing The Wealth=Black and Red Race Reparations=Social Justice

Apollo Alliance and Obama’s Green Czar Van Jones: Greens on The Outside–Reds On The Inside–Big Greens, Big Unions, Big Foundations, Big Business, Big Bucks, Big Taxes–Videos 

Obama’s Opague Oppression–Collectivist Czars Or Commissars–Terminate Tyrants Tea Parties–Join The Second American Revolution

 

George Soros

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

Soros Funded and Obama’s Manufactured Hate Generator–The Southern Poverty Law Center–Disinformation Propaganda Campaign

 

Services Employee International Union (SEIU)

Public Option = Government Option = Pathway to Single Payer = Single Payer = Socialized Medicine = Blue Pill = Poison Pill

The American People Confront Obama’s Red Shirts (ACORN) and Purple Shirts (SEIU)–Bullhorns and Beatings Over Obama Care!

Obama’s Marching Orders For His Red Shirts (ACORN), Purple Shirts (SEIU) and Black Shirts (New Panther Party)–Progressive Radical Socialists

 

Southern Poverty Law Center

Soros Funded and Obama’s Manufactured Hate Generator–The Southern Poverty Law Center–Disinformation

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 11 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...