It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Internet activists scored a landmark victory on Thursday as the top US telecommunications regulator approved a plan to govern broadband internet like a public utility.
Following one of the most intense – and bizarre – lobbying battles in the history of modern Washington politics, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) passed strict new rules that give the body its greatest power over the cable industry since the internet went mainstream.
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler – a former telecom lobbyist turned surprise hero of net neutrality supporters – thanked the 4 million people who submitted comments on the new rules. “Your participation has made this the most open process in FCC history,” he said. “We listened and we learned.”
What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:
(1) Intellectual Property Chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate.
(2) Lack of Transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.
The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. The TPP contains a chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, and patents. Since the draft text of the agreement has never been officially released to the public, we know from leaked documents, such as the May 2014 draft of the TPP Intellectual Property Chapter [PDF], that US negotiators are pushing for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement
All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the US, this is likely to further entrench controversial aspects of US copyright law (such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act [DMCA]) and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving IP needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. The recently leaked US-proposed IP chapter also includes provisions that appear to go beyond current US law.
Why the TPP matters
In this report, we investigate the TPP and the impact it will have on your consumer rights and privacy. You'll find information on:
- the secrecy surrounding the TPP and details of how the media is being locked out of briefings
- how the Australian government could become more vulnerable to lawsuits from multinational corporations
- why food labelling in Australia is in danger
- how draconian copyright provisions could significantly curb our freedom online
- how extended monopoly provisions could make medication costs skyrocket
- CHOICE's campaign on the TPP.
CHOICE is calling for the TPP text to be released before a final agreement is signed.
Why haven't you heard more about it?
The TPP has been shrouded in secrecy, with negotiations happening behind closed doors and non-disclosure agreements securing the negotiators' silence. And while CHOICE has met with several of those involved in drafting the agreement and even attended meetings with negotiators at a round of negotiations held in Malaysia in 2013 (we were permitted to have our say, but could only guess at the contents of the agreement in order to raise our objections), we still don't know what the final agreement will contain. Because of the secrecy, which began under the previous Labor government and has continued under the Coalition, any public knowledge about the TPP is based on leaked drafts and statements made by those involved.
The kicker? Hundreds of "cleared advisors" – a group comprising industry lobbyists from the US – have had access to the full drafts of the TPP, while public interest groups like CHOICE have been kept in the dark. Even our politicians don't get to see the TPP until it's finalised and amendments can't be made.
originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
people got too distracted by that stupid "color of the dress" debate, that's all there is to it.
the fcc made that 300 page document regulating neutrality, a document that cannot be made public.
but it doesn't matter because THAT DRESS!
the same people that get distracted by shiny objects are the same that will then complain about government oppression.
originally posted by: mOjOm
Why is this so hard for people to understand???
originally posted by: mOjOm
We know the how's and why's this happened and you should be happy about it, at least for now. If something changes later we'll deal with it then but like I said it wasn't a choice.
originally posted by: mOjOm
Something might happen down the road, that is possible
Source - Trade Minister Andrew Robb says Trans-Pacific Partnership deal could be struck within weeks
agreement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership could be just weeks away.
Darci Vetter, chief agricultural negotiator for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, says that negotiations are “entering the end game” although the timeline will be decided when tough issues can be resolved.
I don't know why everyone keeps saying all this BS as if we don't know what's up.
We know the how's and why's this happened and you should be happy about it, at least for now.
If something changes later we'll deal with it then but like I said it wasn't a choice.
The people just got lucky this time.
Doesn't mean it will always be that way, but we got as lucky as we could this far. Let's hope it stays this way. But trust me, if it went the other way the Internet as you once new it would be gone and what was left would have been McModernized and Corporatized in to a totally "Pay to Play" Suck Fest!
Emphasis mine.
The most recently leaked draft of the international trade deal includes provisions proposed by the US that would further protect the monopoly pharmaceutical companies hold over drugs, and delay cheaper versions from entering the market, the Medical Journal of Australia report says.
As a new-style agreement, the TPPA has greater potential to affect domestic health policy and, ultimately, the quality of health services and public health.3 For example, leaked documents show that an investor–state dispute settlement mechanism is being negotiated for the TPPA. This enables foreign investors — including companies that manufacture, market and distribute health-damaging products — to directly seek compensation from governments for policies that negatively affect them.
Australia must reject provisions in the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement that could undermine the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and compromise the ability of governments to improve public health, according to the AMA.
As secretive negotiations of the TPP drag out, the AMA has voiced fears the proposed trade deal is out of balance and advances commercial interests at the expense of patient health.
The TPP has been the focus of increasing international concern because of ambitious and far-reaching clauses that are seen to serve the interests of major corporations, particularly in the US.
Among the most controversial provisions are investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) procedures that would enable corporations to mount legal action against government policies and laws they felt harmed the value of their investment or future profits.
Emphasis mine.
(1) Intellectual Property Chapter: Leaked draft texts of the agreement show that the IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate.
it was a choice between a very bad thing and a very very bad thing - it was the lesser of two evils.
originally posted by: Silicis n Volvo
a reply to: Sparkly_Eyed777
It was a lose/lose situation for the public
Either the corporations win and begin regulating the internet. Or the government wins and begins regulating the internet.
You should be worried. We all knew what the corporations wanted to do. But nobody knows what the government will end up doing. All you can be sure of is it will end up costing you money and restricting your freedoms. They threw the bait by telling everyone they would not allow corporations to create "fast lanes". This made people side with the FCC
But the fact that they wont make their 300 page document public should be setting off alarm bells.
What we want is for the internet to just be left alone and neither of these tyrants getting involved.
originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
people got too distracted by that stupid "color of the dress" debate, that's all there is to it.
the fcc made that 300 page document regulating neutrality, a document that cannot be made public.
but it doesn't matter because THAT DRESS!
the same people that get distracted by shiny objects are the same that will then complain about government oppression.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: IShotMyLastMuse
people got too distracted by that stupid "color of the dress" debate, that's all there is to it.
the fcc made that 300 page document regulating neutrality, a document that cannot be made public.
but it doesn't matter because THAT DRESS!
the same people that get distracted by shiny objects are the same that will then complain about government oppression.
It's 8 pages long. The rest are comments from the American people. The reason that it isn't being released is the fault of the GOP. The same bozos telling you that this decision is bad.
originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
what about the 300 pages of regulation that we are not allowed to see?
Isn't that a problem?