Soros 'Free Press' group works with FCC behind closed doors to lobby for 'net neutrality'

Soros 'Free Press' group works with FCC behind closed doors to lobby for 'net neutrality'

pajamasmedia.com

The George Soros-backed “Free Press” media organization claims it is interested in ending back room deals involving government and media lobbyists.

As it declares on its web site,”For too long, media policy has been made behind closed doors in the public’s name but without our involvement or consent.”

However, in a series of newly released e-mails between the Free Press and the U.S. Federal Commuications Commission, it appears that it is the Free Press that’s working the back rooms.

Under the Freedom of Information Act the non-profit Judicial Watch obtained a number of pri

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.judicialw atch.org

Can a revelation like this illuminate the agenda of the Obama administration and his progressive handlers any more?

Yesterday we had certain confirmation of the liberal and progressive bias in all aspects associated with Hollywood and the entertainment industry. News agencies included.

Now we have this little gem that was discovered through a FOIA request. We have an organization that is clearly biased and backed by the grand wizard of the progressive movement attempting to collude with a federal regulatory agency whose job is to follow the rule of law not create it and modify it.

Wow! Is it necessary to find further proof of what this progressive/socialist movement is trying to accomplish while one of its minions is sitting in the White House surrounded by his czars??

pajamasmedia.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Here is the meat of this problem

On November 2, 2010, Free Press Associate Outreach Director Misty Perez Truedson sent an email to John Giusti, Chief of Staff to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps asking if Copps would write an op-ed for the Albuquerque Journal in advance of a November 16 hearing on Internet access: “Would Commissioner Copps be interested in drafting an Op-ed in advance of the hearing? It’s a great way to get the word out and to spark conversations in advance of the event,” Truedson wrote. “We’re working on the op ed,” Giusti wrote back on November 9.

The documents also include a series of emails sent to set up meetings between Copps and former Free Press President John Silver. “We are starting to get a good sense of how we’d like to proceed during the next three tricky months on NN [net neutrality]…” Silver wrote in the same October 8, 2010, email: “I think it may make sense for us to get together next week when I’m in town.” The documents also include a written summary of a phone call between Silver and Copps on November 28, 2010, just prior to the FCC vote in December: “Silver emphasized that a strong net neutrality rule is critical to preserving the Internet as a vibrant forum for speech, commerce, innovation and cultural expression…” the summary noted.

One set of documents includes correspondence between FCC Special Counsel David Tannenbaum and Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott establishing lists of speakers for FCC “internet workshops.” Among the speakers proposed by Scott: “Joe Respars (ran online activism for the Obama campaign – he’s at Blue State Digital);” “Alex Nogales – National Hispanic Media Coalition;” “Jay Stanley – ACLU;” and “Clothilde de Coz [redacted] Reporters without Borders.”

pajamasmedia.com...

I can guarantee that this conspiracy to silence free though runs much deeper than has been discovered here. The tentacles spread far and wide in the realm of the progressive elite. It kills this group to see sites like ATS thrive and grow. To them we are merely garden weeds and untamed batch of kudzu.

reply to post by jibeho


sorry. I can not read from the source because it is censored in Iran.

can you copy the whole document and post it for me ?

thank you.

I've been in telecom pretty much my whole career. Trust me, you WANT net neutrality. You NEED net neutrality. Without it, companies can pick and choose which sites you get to see. Without it, they can charge web sites if those sites want to be seen. Without, Wal-Mart, etc. will come to dominate the Web. Don't believe ANY of the people on the Right with their argument. The Right's argument (and that includes the Tea Party, whose position comes from an uneducated perspective on this subject) is ALL about giving more power to the major carriers and telecom companies. They twist the argument around to make it seem anti-capitalistic. TRUST ME, it is the opposite. net Neutrality is the opitome of capitalistic -- the best sites shine and have equal opportunity to be found and viewed, with the best ones getting more traffic. That's capitalism. Those against net neutrality are promoting a total hierarachal and monopolitistic model (most don't understand that).

In short, without net neutrality, sites like ATS will DIE and instea you'll be left with a few corporate choices.

first off let's change the terminology so that
it makes sense.

when they say net neutrality
they actually mean net censorship.
Control of the net.

Soros is NWO and you can bet
ur sweet @r$e that nothing he's
doing is gonna benefit free speech
or the US Constitution or the rights
or freedoms of citizens.

Soros works for the Rothschilds
and their banking cartels. And they
do not give a chit about you.

my 2 pence

Originally posted by pajoly
I've been in telecom pretty much my whole career. Trust me, you WANT net neutrality. You NEED net neutrality. Without it, companies can pick and choose which sites you get to see. Without it, they can charge web sites if those sites want to be seen. Without, Wal-Mart, etc. will come to dominate the Web. Don't believe ANY of the people on the Right with their argument. The Right's argument (and that includes the Tea Party, whose position comes from an uneducated perspective on this subject) is ALL about giving more power to the major carriers and telecom companies. They twist the argument around to make it seem anti-capitalistic. TRUST ME, it is the opposite. net Neutrality is the opitome of capitalistic -- the best sites shine and have equal opportunity to be found and viewed, with the best ones getting more traffic. That's capitalism. Those against net neutrality are promoting a total hierarachal and monopolitistic model (most don't understand that).

In short, without net neutrality, sites like ATS will DIE and instea you'll be left with a few corporate choices.

frankly I am insulted by that remark.
I have done some research and have seen
some of those bandwidth monitor pages
that users have to go to to see if they are
over their limited bandwidth each month
else they get charged extra fees.
How is regulating bandwidth of users
ANYTHING other than CONTROL ???

And you say this is good ???
before net neutrality, there was no hidden charges
no matter how much you used the net.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
first off let's change the terminology so that
it makes sense.

when they say net neutrality
they actually mean net censorship.
Control of the net.

Soros is NWO and you can bet
ur sweet @r$e that nothing he's
doing is gonna benefit free speech
or the US Constitution or the rights
or freedoms of citizens.

Soros works for the Rothschilds
and their banking cartels. And they
do not give a chit about you.

my 2 pence

Boondock, it is actually the TOTAL opposite. That is why all academics and free speech and free assembly people are huge Net Neutrality advocates. The Net is the last place where people can cheaply, quickly and collectively gather, share ideas, etc. It is the only place where even one person can set up a Web site and earn a living, win traffic, etc. Take away net neutrality and it all goes away. The small sites will disappear, your ability to have a web site that will be seen will go away. Somehow the oligarchs have pulled off the biggest switch-a-roo such that even guys like you think "net neutrality" is a play to take away your rights. Damn, they completely manipulated your perception. I pray you read the expert articles on the subject. Like I said, I have been in telecom my whole life, most of that working with small, rural, homegrown ISPs. I know these issues like the back of my hand.

reply to post by boondock-saint


EXACTLY!! Bandwidth metering is the opposite of net neutrality. Those against net neutrality are FOR bandwidth metering, as well as being able to set site priotizations, like deciding setting subscriber fees for various sites (either to you or by holding the site hostage by metering its traffic). If you don't support net neutrality, you are supporting the concept of the Internet as a toll road.

Originally posted by pajoly
Boondock, it is actually the TOTAL opposite.

I have heard this same rhetoric before
in 2001 when they introduced the Patriot
Act. And there was not a damn thing patriotic
about it. And see where we are 10 yrs later???
can't get rid of the chit.

Originally posted by boondock-saint


when they say net neutrality
they actually mean net censorship.
Control of the net.

This is simply false. Net neutrality protects the freedom of internet users. It prevents ISPs from limiting what services or sites you can access. It also prevents ISPs from throttling competing services. Without it, an ISP could block a site like ATS and there is nothing you can do about it except to switch to another ISP. The problem with switching to another ISP is that many communities have no alternatives to switch to.

It more or less ensures the freedom of the internet for the user. Now, it does limit the ability of internet providers to gouge customers by limiting competing services like on demand movies. Which is why you see paid politicians and talking heads railing against it.

reply to post by pajoly


This is merely another power grab that puts all authority and control into the hands of the govt and will thereby grant power that is above and beyond to yet another regulatory agency. Just like what has been done to the EPA and it new authority granted by the White House.

These folks believe that access to THEIR ideal internet universe is a civil right. They will push for free access to controlled and monitored website for all. Of course the govt. will pay for all of this free Wifi access to blanket the nation.

How can this actually be good when you consider the current liberal influence, bias and spoon feeding of information that is already present in all major media streams. Internet included. Just the facts news reporting is already dead in these media streams. If you want the real dope you have to hit the small independent web sites and blogs that are now run by former reporters and investigative journalists.

Net Neutrality would turn the internet into a govt. controlled version of Clear Channel radio. Pre programmed and selected just for you by the record labels (insert govt. here)

This is part of the Open Society fantasy hence Soros push and constant flood of cash into groups that are pushing for this behind the scenes and in the shadows of the Oval Office.

reply to post by boondock-saint


Damn, it ain't the same thing Boondock and if guys like you can't be convinced, we are f'ed. Just do me the favor of checking out who is for and who is against net neutrality. On the "against" side. This is a GREAT article that dispels the myths and provides examples: www.mobydisk.com...

Read this scholarly article too (all the "open access" and free speech advocates are scared crappless about losing net neutrality):

www.cepr.net...&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/net-neutrality-is-vital-to-free-speech-in-the-internet-age

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by pajoly

 

This is merely another power grab that puts all authority and control into the hands of the govt and will thereby grant power that is above and beyond to yet another regulatory agency. Just like what has been done to the EPA and it new authority granted by the White House.

These folks believe that access to THEIR ideal internet universe is a civil right. They will push for free access to controlled and monitored website for all. Of course the govt. will pay for all of this free Wifi access to blanket the nation.

How can this actually be good when you consider the current liberal influence, bias and spoon feeding of information that is already present in all major media streams. Internet included. Just the facts news reporting is already dead in these media streams. If you want the real dope you have to hit the small independent web sites and blogs that are now run by former reporters and investigative journalists.

Net Neutrality would turn the internet into a govt. controlled version of Clear Channel radio. Pre programmed and selected just for you by the record labels (insert govt. here)

This is part of the Open Society fantasy hence Soros push and constant flood of cash into groups that are pushing for this behind the scenes and in the shadows of the Oval Office.

God help us, because what you think is the EXACT opposite of reality. You don't have to believe, but I am an expert and you should, you need to believe me. The Net works by net neutraility NOW, that is how it was designe, no site favored over the other. You lose that and the Internet becomes JUST like your cable subscription -- they provide the choices. What you are thinking is the opposite of reality. Why in the hell do you think Verizon, ATT, Comcast, etc. are all AGAINST net neutrality? Without it, they will make gazillions charging you or the sites themselves.

Reading posts like yours is making me beat my head against the wall. It is like you are an expert mechanic an then I come along and tell people the best way to run your car is to put sugar in the tank and I might really belive that, but as an expert, you know that'd be crazy. On this issue, you are guy telling people to put sugar in their gas tank.

Originally posted by Kaploink
Net neutrality protects the freedom of internet users.

so please tell me why net neutrality will allow
the gov a backdoor into any network ??

Does this mean that the owner of a coffee shop with a WiFi connection would be subject to FCC regulation of its firewall configuration? One would hope not, but that’s what the language seems to suggest.

techcrunch.com...

net neutrality allows big brother in our
computers by law. This is why Soros
is for this option. DHS can now by law
won't need the Patriot Act to monitor
ur activities.

now, tell me I'm wrong !!!!

I don't totally trust any one of them
but if I had to choose which do I trust
more between AT&T or Big Brother.
It is a hands down AT&T.

reply to post by pajoly


I appreciate your idealistic approach and I don't question your level expertise in the telecom industry. However, power grabs are just what they are. The presentation of the legislation looks pretty (Obamacare) and may make sense to some who only read bullet points.

Ask yourself a simple question. What happens once the door has been opened after the legislation has passed? What will you discover that was buried deep in the complex language of actual text? We are discovering that with Obamacare each and everyday.

Get the bill passed and work out the "details" later. Never mind the barn doors and pasture gates that have been left wide open in the process. They call this backdoor legislation and any sweeping legislation like what is desired with Net Neutrality will be full of it.

That is why I have my doubts. Doubts that are anchored in political reality especially when I see people like Soros that have direct links to the Oval Office.

No need to bang your head. It starts to hurt after the first three hits....

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by Kaploink
Net neutrality protects the freedom of internet users.

so please tell me why net neutrality will allow
the gov a backdoor into any network ??

Does this mean that the owner of a coffee shop with a WiFi connection would be subject to FCC regulation of its firewall configuration? One would hope not, but that’s what the language seems to suggest.

techcrunch.com...

net neutrality allows big brother in our
computers by law. This is why Soros
is for this option. DHS can now by law
won't need the Patriot Act to monitor
ur activities.

now, tell me I'm wrong !!!!

It will allow them to selectively shut down what they deem as a threat to security under the patriot act. Hence the growing talk and reporting on the increased threat of terrorist Cyber Attacks. Perceived threats are great tools to advance legislation.

Cyber attacks..Act of War
video.foxnews.com...

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by pajoly

 

I appreciate your idealistic approach and I don't question your level expertise in the telecom industry. However, power grabs are just what they are. The presentation of the legislation looks pretty (Obamacare) and may make sense to some who only read bullet points.

Ask yourself a simple question. What happens once the door has been opened after the legislation has passed? What will you discover that was buried deep in the complex language of actual text? We are discovering that with Obamacare each and everyday.

Get the bill passed and work out the "details" later. Never mind the barn doors and pasture gates that have been left wide open in the process. They call this backdoor legislation and any sweeping legislation like what is desired with Net Neutrality will be full of it.

That is why I have my doubts. Doubts that are anchored in political reality especially when I see people like Soros that have direct links to the Oval Office.

No need to bang your head. It starts to hurt after the first three hits....

This is one of those strange times where legislation has to happen or else the big telecom companies will begin to meter the Internet and turn it into something akin to cable TV because there is no law today that says they can't. So without Net Neutrality (which is to say without a law codifying how the net works today and has always worked), the Internet as you know it today will disappear, Sites like ATS will disappear (unless they choose to pay Comcast, et al to allow their subscribers access to the site).

Originally posted by pajoly

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by pajoly

 

I appreciate your idealistic approach and I don't question your level expertise in the telecom industry. However, power grabs are just what they are. The presentation of the legislation looks pretty (Obamacare) and may make sense to some who only read bullet points.

Ask yourself a simple question. What happens once the door has been opened after the legislation has passed? What will you discover that was buried deep in the complex language of actual text? We are discovering that with Obamacare each and everyday.

Get the bill passed and work out the "details" later. Never mind the barn doors and pasture gates that have been left wide open in the process. They call this backdoor legislation and any sweeping legislation like what is desired with Net Neutrality will be full of it.

That is why I have my doubts. Doubts that are anchored in political reality especially when I see people like Soros that have direct links to the Oval Office.

No need to bang your head. It starts to hurt after the first three hits....

This is one of those strange times where legislation has to happen or else the big telecom companies will begin to meter the Internet and turn it into something akin to cable TV because there is no law today that says they can't. So without Net Neutrality (which is to say without a law codifying how the net works today and has always worked), the Internet as you know it today will disappear, Sites like ATS will disappear (unless they choose to pay Comcast, et al to allow their subscribers access to the site).

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. Sweeping legislation like this and Obamacare serve to create high levels of uncertainty in the markets and with businesses. Uncertainty, leads to spending freezes, cuts and reduced expansion and investment. The free enterprise will just wither away in the dry dusty breeze that is generated by the govt. Bye Bye innovation, ingenuity and jobs.

Remember the purpose of the Telecom act of 1996? The first six words of this legislation “to promote competition and reduce regulation.”

I think an alternative can be worked out that still fosters innovation, competition, investment and growth.