Tag Archive: Federal Communications Commission

Global Community Report Banner photo FSPLogoGlobalCommunityFulloldworldmapbckgrnd_zps43d3059c.jpg




The big cable companies are back — and this time they’re going through the courts to try to kill the Net Neutrality rules we won earlier this year. Activists are filing a “People’s Brief” in a few days to make sure that the court understands just how important Net Neutrality is: Click here to read the brief, and add your name below to sign on.


A third-party consultant will help us manage data collected from this campaign.

Spread the word.

Click here to add your name to the Net Neutrality People’s Brief — the single best thing you can do to make sure Net Neutrality is here to stay.

These lawsuits are by far the biggest threat to Net Neutrality. Armed to the teeth with lawyers, the odds will be stacked in Comcast’s favor if we stand idly by — even though the new Net Neutrality rules were built on the strongest legal grounds possible.

It’s ridiculous that months after winning Net Neutrality, we still have to fight to defend the new rules. But we knew this was coming. Now, if we don’t take action, we’ll lose it to the cable industry’s army of lawyers.

That’s why we’re organizing tens of thousands of people to weigh in together as part of the People’s Brief, and why we need you to add your name right now.

Click here to add your name to the Net Neutrality People’s Brief and remind the judges who look at this that the public has spoken loud and clear.

Normally in cases like these, it’s only corporations and wonky nonprofits that submit briefs. But given how we won Net Neutrality, with millions of people weighing in to the FCC to support the Open Internet, we wanted to make sure everyone can take part, directly.

Even now that the battle has arrived in its final stages, we can use the Internet to save the Internet. We think that’s a pretty cool thing, and we hope you’ll join in.

Take action to protect Net Neutrality — join the People’s Brief now.

Share this page!

Without Net Neutrality, the big cable companies would control the Internet, and make it harder for us to access information that doesn’t align with what’s best for the companies’ bottom lines or that disagrees with their political leanings. If Net Neutrality weren’t the norm, we might even have been blocked from engaging in the online activism that helped secure the Net Neutrality rules that we’re now working to defend!

Help us share this action with as many people as possible!

Fight for the Future's profile photo
Fight for the Future


US bill requires smart phone ‘kill switch’

TWO US officials have announced plans to introduce legislation requiring smart phones to have a “kill switch” that would render stolen or lost devices inoperable.

California State Senator Mark Leno and San Francisco District Attorney George Gascon announced on Thursday that the bill they believe will be the first of its kind in the United States will be formally introduced in January.

US law enforcement officials have been demanding that manufacturers create kill switches to combat surging smart phone theft across the country.

“One of the top catalysts for street crime in many California cities is smart phone theft, and these crimes are becoming increasingly violent,” Leno said.

“We cannot continue to ignore our ability to utilise existing technology to stop cellphone thieves in their tracks…”

Almost one in three US robberies involve phone theft, according to the Federal Communications Commission.

Lost and stolen mobile devices – mostly smart phones – cost consumers more than $US30 billion ($A33.98 billion) last year, according to a study.


Read More Here



Calif. lawmaker to introduce smartphone ‘kill switch’ bill

Sen. Mark Leno wants to make the security feature — aimed at bricking stolen smartphones — the law.


December 19, 2013 5:02 PM PST


(Credit: CNET)

A California senator plans to introduce a new bill that would require smartphones to enable a “kill switch,” a security feature that would make a phone inoperable if it’s stolen.

Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) announced Thursday that he will introduce the bill at the start of the 2014 legislative session in January, with the support of San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón.

“One of the top catalysts for street crime in many California cities is smartphone theft, and these crimes are becoming increasingly violent,” Leno said in a press release. “We cannot continue to ignore our ability to utilize existing technology to stop cell phone thieves in their tracks. It is time to act on this serious public safety threat to our communities.”


Read More Here



Enhanced by Zemanta

White House backs the ‘unlocking’ of mobile devices

Published on Mar 4, 2013

The Library of Congress ruled that it is illegal to unlock your cell phone to be able to use it on another mobile network, but on Monday the White House responded to a public petition which had over 100,000 people wanting the Obama administration to take a stance on whether or not unlocking your cell phone should become illegal. An Obama’s senior adviser sided with petitioners claiming consumers pay for their mobile devices and “should be able to use it on another network.” RT’s Meghan Lopez has more.


Reply to petition: ‘It’s time to legalize cell phone unlocking’

By Paul McNamara on Mon, 03/04/13 – 2:01pm.

In a dramatic call for action directly prompted by 114,000 signatures on a “We the People” petition, the Obama Administration moments ago pledged to overturn a federal regulatory decision that had rendered the act of unlocking a cell phone illegal.

From a reply to the petition posted within the hour:

The White House agrees with the 114,000+ of you who believe that consumers should be able to unlock their cell phones without risking criminal or other penalties. In fact, we believe the same principle should also apply to tablets, which are increasingly similar to smart phones. And if you have paid for your mobile device, and aren’t bound by a service agreement or other obligation, you should be able to use it on another network. It’s common sense, crucial for protecting consumer choice, and important for ensuring we continue to have the vibrant, competitive wireless market that delivers innovative products and solid service to meet consumers’ needs.

(2013’s 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries)

This is particularly important for secondhand or other mobile devices that you might buy or receive as a gift, and want to activate on the wireless network that meets your needs — even if it isn’t the one on which the device was first activated. All consumers deserve that flexibility.

The issue came to a head recently when the Library of Congress allowed to expire an exception to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that until then protected those who would unlock their cell phones and those carriers who would court their business.

As for the next step:

The Obama Administration would support a range of approaches to addressing this issue, including narrow legislative fixes in the telecommunications space that make it clear: neither criminal law nor technological locks should prevent consumers from switching carriers when they are no longer bound by a service agreement or other obligation.

We also believe the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), with its responsibility for promoting mobile competition and innovation, has an important role to play here. FCC Chairman Genachowski today voiced his concern about mobile phone unlocking (.pdf), and to complement his efforts, NTIA will be formally engaging with the FCC as it addresses this urgent issue


Finally, we would encourage mobile providers to consider what steps they as businesses can take to ensure that their customers can fully reap the benefits and features they expect when purchasing their devices.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski issued a statement that reads:

Read Full Article Here

Society of Professional Journalists

Society of Professional Journalists (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fox News Channel

Fox News Channel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Rupert Murdoch - Caricature

Rupert Murdoch – Caricature (Photo credit: DonkeyHotey)

Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling

03/09/10 11:48 Filed in: Media Reform

courtesy of Broadcast Bluescourtesy of The Corporation

UPDATED:Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it…in court…positioning the First Amendment as their defense!

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).
A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station’s pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was “a false, distorted, or slanted” story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict.

Are you ready for a ‘global internet tax?’

Rick Moran


Greedy, corrupt, shortsighted, anti-business – and those are their good qualities.

I’m talking about the UN, of course, and their quest to fulfill the dreams of their founders to act as a one world government.


The United Nations is considering a new Internet tax targeting the largest Web content providers, including Google, Facebook, Apple, and Netflix, that could cripple their ability to reach users in developing nations.

The European proposal, offered for debate at a December meeting of a U.N. agency called the International Telecommunication Union, would amend an existing telecommunications treaty by imposing heavy costs on popular Web sites and their network providers for the privilege of serving non-U.S. users, according to newly leaked documents.

The documents (No. 1 No. 2) punctuate warnings that the Obama administration and Republican members of Congress raised last week about how secret negotiations at the ITU over an international communications treaty could result in a radical re-engineering of the Internet ecosystem and allow governments to monitor or restrict their citizens’ online activities.

“It’s extremely worrisome,” Sally Shipman Wentworth, senior manager for public policy at the Internet Society, says about the proposed Internet taxes. “It could create an enormous amount of legal uncertainty and commercial uncertainty.”

Yes, but think of the enormous amount of cash that would roll into UN coffers.

Such sender-pays frameworks, including the one from ETNO, could prompt U.S.-based Internet services to reject connections from users in developing countries, who would become unaffordably expensive to communicate with, predicts Robert Pepper, Cisco’s vice president for global technology policy.

Developing countries “could effectively be cut off from the Internet,” says Pepper, a former policy chief at the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. It “could have a host of very negative unintended consequences.”

“Unintended consequences” is what usually happens when globalists get their grubby hands on anything. And the question of why fiddle with something that works spectacularly well is beyond comprehension. There’s no reason to monkey with the internet except to monetize portions of it for very powerful interests.

It should be resisted at all costs.