US Tech Opposes FCC Wheeler's Plan to Kill the Internet

Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington D.C. 20554

May 7, 2014

Dear Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn, Rosenworcel, Pai, and O’Reilly:

We write to express our support for a free and open internet. Over the past twenty years, American innovators have created countless Internet-based applications, content offerings, and services that are used around the world. These innovations have created enormous value for Internet users, fueled economic growth, and made our Internet companies global leaders. The innovation we have seen to date happened in a world without discrimination. An open Internet has also been a platform for free speech and opportunity for billions of users.

The Commission’s long-standing commitment and actions undertaken to protect the open Internet are a central reason why the Internet remains an engine of entrepreneurship and economic growth.

According to recent news reports, the Commission intends to propose rules that would enable phone and cable Internet service providers to discriminate both technically and financially against Internet companies and to impose new tolls on them. If these reports are correct, this represents a grave threat to the Internet.

Instead of permitting individualized bargaining and discrimination, the Commission’s rules should protect users and Internet companies on both fixed and mobile platforms against blocking, discrim- ination, and paid prioritization, and should make the market for Internet services more transparent. The rules should provide certainty to all market participants and keep the costs of regulation low.

Such rules are essential for the future of the Internet. This Commission should take the necessary steps to ensure that the Internet remains an open platform for speech and commerce so that America continues to lead the world in technology markets.

Sincerely,
Amazon
Cogent
Dropbox
Ebay
Etsy
Facebook
Foursquare
Google
Kickstarter
Level 3
LinkedIn
Lyft
Microsoft
Netflix
Reddit
Tumblr
Twitter
Vonage Holdings Corp.
Yahoo! Inc.
Zynga

source: http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/assets/4422119/letter_to_FCC.pdf

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Google challenges US gag order, citing First Amendment

Nothing like having to petition a secret Court (renown for its "rubber-stamp" approval of all governmental requests) to assert the constitutional right of free speech--

Google challenges U.S. gag order, citing First Amendment - The Washington Post: "Google asked the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court) on Tuesday to ease long-standing gag orders over data requests the court makes, arguing that the company has a constitutional right to speak about information it is forced to give the government. The legal filing, which invokes the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, is the latest move by the California-based tech giant to protect its reputation in the aftermath of news reports about broad National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance of Internet traffic. . . ."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Cuba, free speech, and internet freedom

One thing the U.S. government is doing right--

Cuba denounces US diplomats - KansasCity.com: "U.S. officials have long maintained that they are doing nothing illegal in Cuba and that supporting free speech, cultural activities and Internet access is a common practice at missions around the world. "We are absolutely guilty of those charges. The U.S. Interests Section in Havana does regularly offer free courses in using the Internet to Cubans who want to sign up. We also have computers available for Cubans to use," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland told reporters in Washington. "Obviously this wouldn't be necessary if the Cuban government didn't restrict access to the Internet and prevent its own citizens from getting technology training.""

U.S. taxpayer money well spent!

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

After Benghazi, Muslims attack free speech

If you haven't noticed, Muslims worldwide are now attacking free speech (you can read an example at the link below). And who began this war on free speech--who else but the Obama administration!!--

WEISS: After Benghazi, Muslims attack free speech - Washington Times: "It’s unclear if the Obama administration’s purpose in condemning the now-infamous “anti-Islam YouTube video” was to deflect from Obama’s failed Middle East policies, and those of Benghazi in particular, or if it was his intent to “protect Islam from negative stereotypes” as he promised to do in his Cairo speech. Either way, his constant denunciation of the 14-minute, amateurish, anti-Islam YouTube clip signals weakness to the Muslim world and may have given license to Muslims in the West to demand restrictions on freedom of speech."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Google stands up for Free Speech and rejects Obama's Censorship Request

Oath of Office for President of the United States - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Barack Obama had better go back and read the oath of office he swore to almost 4 years ago. His job is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," and if he is unable to carry out the duties of his office, he needs to resign--immediately. It is not his (nor the U.S. government's) job to censor free speech (see First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution)--

Google rejects White House request to pull Mohammad film clip | Reuters: "Google Inc rejected a request by the White House on Friday to reconsider its decision to keep online a controversial YouTube movie clip that has ignited anti-American protests in the Middle East. The Internet company said it was censoring the video in India and Indonesia after blocking it on Wednesday in Egypt and Libya, where U.S. embassies have been stormed by protestors enraged over depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a fraud and philanderer. On Tuesday, the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were killed in a fiery siege on the embassy in Benghazi. Google said (it) was further restricting the clip to comply with local law rather than as a response to political pressure. "We've restricted access to it in countries where it is illegal such as India and Indonesia, as well as in Libya and Egypt, given the very sensitive situations in these two countries," the company said. "This approach is entirely consistent with principles we first laid out in 2007." White House officials had asked Google earlier on Friday to reconsider whether the video had violated YouTube's terms of service. The guidelines can be viewed here . Google said on Wednesday that the video was within its guidelines."

Who's preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States--Obama or Google? Pretty clear it is Google. Also pretty sad when a private corporation has to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against attempts by the President and his administration to violate Constitutional freedoms.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Is blogging free speech or terrorism?

Vietnam jails French-Vietnamese teacher over blogs - Technology - MiamiHerald.com: "Pham Minh Hoang, 56, was found guilty of trying to overthrow the government by posting 33 articles against the one-party Communist system, as well as of holding membership in the banned Viet Tan group and recruiting others to join it. It was the second high-profile dissident trial in just over a week.

U.S.-based Viet Tan says it is a nonviolent advocate of democracy, but Hanoi considers it a terror organization - a claim U.S. officials say they have not found any evidence to support."

Letter to prime minister requesting blogger Pham Minh Hoang’s release - Reporters Without Borders: "The Vietnamese justice system is going to try Mr. Hoang on a charge of trying to overthrow the people’s government because he wrote articles in his blog, gave extra-curricular training in leadership to his students and is a member of the Viet Tan pro-democracy party.

These activities are nonetheless guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and articles 35, 50, 53 and 69 of your country’s Constitution. The only appropriate outcome to Mr. Hoang’s trial would therefore be his acquittal and unconditional release. Mr. Hoang must recover his complete freedom.

Vietnam is increasingly the target of criticism for its human rights violations . . ."