The backlash to the IRS's oppressive regulation is a success

From The National Right To Work Committee:

We sounded the alarm, and you took up the call.

I can't say I have any high hopes the Obama IRS will listen to the outpouring of comments by citizens like you opposing new regulations designed to stifle political speech, especially after the outrageous targeting of conservative groups.

But I'd like to thank you for standing up and making sure opposition to this unconstitutional scheme was heard.

By last night's deadline, the IRS had received over 140,000 comments. After 98,000 comments had been received, the IRS confirmed to the media that was a new record.

And "most were overwhelmingly critical," Roll Call reported.

Nearly 6,000 of those comments contained the exact sample language I sent Right to Work supporters like you, and countless others submitted their own comments about protecting the First Amendment.

Not only that, over 20,000 Right to Work supporters signed our petition against these onerous regulations.

Make no mistake, the Obama IRS drafted these regulations with the goal to shut you up.

And even if, as I expect, the Obama IRS doesn't heed your call to withdraw the proposed rules, you sent a loud and clear message that even the mainstream media noticed.

One of the reasons the Big Government championed by union bosses is so dangerous is the damage it can do to our rights without the level of public scrutiny that occurs over battles in Congress.

You and I know what that's like, after facing off against the radical Obama Labor Board these past several years.

Thank you again for fighting back against this unconstitutional assault on your freedom of speech.

I'll keep you updated if the IRS implements these speech-chilling rules -- and how we can fight back in court.

Sincerely,

Mark Mix

P.S. The National Right to Work Committee relies on your voluntary contributions to fund its programs. Please chip in with a contribution of $10 or more today.

Don't let net neutrality die

From Free Press:

Bad news: Three judges in Washington, D.C., just dealt a huge blow to the open Internet.

An appeals court struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s Open Internet Order because of mistakes the agency made when it adopted its Net Neutrality rules.

Translation: This court just killed Net Neutrality. This could be the end of the Internet as we know it. But it doesn’t have to be.

This decision means that Internet users can expect companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon to block or slow down any website, application or service they like. These companies will rush to change the Web and line their own pockets at our expense — creating new tolls for app makers, expensive price tiers for popular sites, and fast lanes open only to the few content providers that can afford them.

Here’s the Thing: The FCC Could Stop All This Right Now.

Yup, you heard us: The FCC could make all this go away by simply reading the law right and reclaiming the authority it already has to protect Internet users for good.

During the tenure of former FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, the agency made a grave mistake by failing to put its open Internet rules on the most solid legal footing. Internet users will pay the price of that decision unless and until the FCC fixes the problem it created for itself.

New FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler must correct the agency’s past mistakes and truly protect our nation’s communications infrastructure. The agency must ensure that broadband communications networks are open, accessible, reliable and affordable for everyone. It needs to stop fulfilling the wish lists of the big phone and cable monopolies — and start looking out for Internet users.

Let’s Get It Right This Time. Tell Chairman Wheeler to Protect the Open Internet — and All of Its Users — for Real.

Millions of people have fought for Net Neutrality. Together we can fight back against these greedy Internet service providers. Together we can save the Internet we love.

Onward,

Josh, Candace and the rest of the Free Press team
Free Press
freepress.net

P.S. This isn’t the end of the open Internet. It’s just the beginning of a long fight to save the Internet we love. We don’t take money from business, government or political parties and rely on the generosity of people like you to fuel our work. Please donate $15 (or more!) today. Thank you!

To sign the petition

Verizon hates free speech

Court case renews debate on US 'Open Internet' rules

AFP
Rob Lever

Debate is back on in Washington on US regulations on "net neutrality" which bar Internet broadband providers from blocking or discriminating against services or content.

A court case for which arguments were held this month brought by Verizon, one of the largest Internet service providers, challenges the "Open Internet" rule approved in 2010 by the Federal Communications Commission.

The seemingly arcane rule, or changes to it, could have an important impact: some say it may determine whether fixed broadband providers can control what services flow throw their networks.

"These rules provide an important safeguard both for innovation and investment on the Internet," said David Sohn, an attorney with the Center for Democracy and Technology, which backs the FCC rules.

Sohn said that if Verizon has its way, it and other providers like Comcast or AT&T could "play favorites," by blocking or degrading services such as YouTube or Netflix to promote their own offerings or that of their partners.

"Every user every day benefits from this rule for the services they use, whether it's YouTube ot Twitter or something else," Sohn told AFP.

But Verizon and its allies argue the FCC lacks authority to interfere with their business, and that Congress never decided these companies were regulated utilities or "common carriers."

"It is not up to the FCC to decide these issues on its own," said Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker, arguing the case before the US Court of Appeals in Washington earlier this month.

"It has no implied authority, no express authority.. and it's highly unlikely that Congress would have delegated authority in such a convoluted way."

The FCC, in a 3-2 majority decision December 2010, said it imposed the rules to ensure that the Internet "has no gatekeepers limiting innovation and communication through the network."

But participants at the appeals court hearing said two of the three judges appeared inclined to overturn the FCC rules, although the decision could stem from either jurisdictional or fundamental legal arguments.

Whatever the appeals court decides, the debate is likely to continue. Either side could appeal to the US Supreme Court, and the issue could end up in Congress, which has been divided on the issue.

Amid the US debate, the European Commission this month adopted a similar "net neutrality" provision barring any blocking or throttling of competing or data-heavy services.

With the stakes high, Washington lobby groups on both sides have been ramping up their efforts.

"This affects most Americans who watch a move on Netflix or who make a phone call on Vonage," said Pantelis Michalopoulos, lawyer for parties arguing in support of the FCC rules.

Michalopoulos said companies like Verizon "have the incentive and ability to discriminate" against service and could, for example, degrade Netflix to the point where viewers would see blank screens.

But another Washington lawyer work works on tech issues, and who requested not to be cited because of clients he represents in the sector, said he did not believe service providers would try to dramatically reshape what flows through their networks.

"It would be commercially infeasible to offer an Internet service if you couldn't get to the big sites," the lawyer said.

More likely, the attorney said, would be deals mirroring what is taking place in the wireless space, which is not subject to the same rules, and where providers offer premium packages on an exclusive basis, such as NFL football games.

Firms like Verizon fear that if the FCC has its way, the agency would be in a position to more tightly regulate broadband as a public utility, which might mean regulating prices as well.

Scott Cleland at the advocacy group NetCompetition, which backs Verizon in the case, said overturning the FCC rules would bring free-market economics back to the Internet.

"Consumers would be able to pay less, not more for broadband, if consumers no longer were forced to shoulder the full broadband cost of Internet access by subsidizing the biggest edge companies like Netflix and Google-YouTube, which consume about half of the Internet's peak traffic," Cleland said on his blog.

But Jennifer Yeh at the advocacy group Free Press said in a blog post that the dangers are greater if Verizon overturns the rules.

"The FCC needs to restore its authority to ensure that network providers can't block or discriminate against any online content. Otherwise, we run the risk of the Internet going the way of cable -- where the providers determine what content we see, charge us different prices based on what content we get, and extract tolls from Internet companies for delivering that content to users," she said.

Source:click here

Sign the petition to preserve net neutrality.

More information:click here

This is bad. If you are a Verizon customer you may want to tell them that you won't allow it. If you don't they're going to decide what you do and where you go on the net. Not only that but this could be misused by those in power to silence anyone against them. This is a slippery slope and it is one that should be avoided. Let's hope the courts uphold the net neutrality laws.