Posted on

Net Neutrality Repeal: A Victory for Freedom Over the Hysteria of an Internet Apocalypse

hacker-neo

the staff of the Ridgewood blog 

This month marks one year since the FCC repealed the controversial Obama era net neutrality rules. According to America’s left it would be killing the internet as we knew it forever , but in this post internet apocalyptic world one report shows that download speeds are actually up 35.8 percent.

Many will remember the hysteria  when Democrats marched onto Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. and demanded that lawmakers stop a vote to repeal Net Neutrality? Liberals argued, and the Federal Communications Commission decision would take the country back to the stone age, well it didn’t, In fact, internet speeds across the board are faster than ever before.

The internet has been a household commodity available for public use since August 6, 1991 and gone fully mainstream since 1994 ,but according to net neutrality’s most fervent supporters, the internet didn’t truly take off until February 2015, when the FCC passed and adopted the new rules.

Net neutrality sought to define the internet as a public utility, putting it in the same category as water, electric, and telephone services. Doing so left it open to regulatory oversight, specifically when it came to connection speeds and the price providers were allowed to charge consumers for its use.

 Cynics saw it as a power grab , to regulate and control the content you see on the internet .

Since the repeal Internet speeds have gone up by nearly 40 percent, per the 2018 Speedtest U.S. Fixed Broadband Performance Report.

“With gigabit expanding across the nation, fixed broadband speeds in the United States are rapidly increasing. Speedtest® data reveals a 35.8% increase in mean download speed during the last year and a 22.0% increase in upload speed,” internet speed-test company Ookla reports. “As a result, the U.S. ranks 7th in the world for download speed, between Hungary and Switzerland. The U.S. ranks 27th for upload, between Bulgaria and Canada, during Q2-Q3 2018.”

The internet is getting faster, especially fixed broadband internet. Broadband download speeds in the U.S. rose 35.8 percent and upload speeds are up 22 percent from last year, according to internet speed-test company Ookla in its latest U.S. broadband report.

The growth in speed is important as the internet undergirds more of our daily lives and the wider economy. As internet service providers continue building out fiber networks around the country, expect speeds to increase, though speeds vary widely by region depending on infrastructure and whether or not an area has fiber.

As of October, the U.S. ranked seventh in the world in broadband and 43rd in mobile download speeds — a slight increase in rank from last year. Broadband is twice as fast as mobile. Broadband speed growth is also outpacing mobile. The rollout of 5G mobile connections should help.

Once again demonstrating the fact is that less government regulation results in better outcomes for both companies and consumers. So the next time we are told that a lack of regulation is going to be the end of life as we know it, we would do well to remember what really happened when the government finally freed the internet from its grasp.

Posted on

Governor Murphy Moves to Control Search Functions and Limit Consumer Choice for New Jersey Internet Users

internet-freedom

Governor Murphy Signs Executive Order Requiring All ISPs that Contract With New Jersey to Adhere to Fake Net Neutrality Principles

February 6, 2018

the staff of the Ridgewood

Trenton NJ,  in another huge step backwards for New Jersey ,Governor Phil Murphy signed an Executive Order mandating that all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that do business with the State of New Jersey follow the principles of net neutrality, a critical step in securing a free and open Internet for state residents.

Murphy once again shows he is a dangerous threat to personal freedom .

Governor Murphy’s Executive Order responds to a recent decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to rescind net neutrality and potentially limit access to the Internet, allow companies to pay more to have their content treated favorably, or force consumers to pay more to access websites.

Murphy seems dead set to attempt to limit choice and control and manipulate internet searches instead sending New Jersey backwards with fake “Net Neutrality”.

Making the straw man argument,  “We may not agree with everything we see online, but that does not give us a justifiable reason to block the free, uninterrupted, and indiscriminate flow of information,” Governor Murphy said. “And, it certainly doesn’t give certain companies or individuals a right to pay their way to the front of the line. While New Jersey cannot unilaterally regulate net neutrality back into law or cement it as a state regulation, we can exercise our power as a consumer to make our preferences known.”

Governor Murphy’s Executive Order will make New Jersey the third state –along with New York and Montana—to mandate that ISPs adhere to net neutrality rules or lose the ability to contract in state. The Executive Order will apply to all contracts between state entities and ISPs that are executed on or after July 1, 2018. The Attorney General’s Division of Consumer Affairs will work with the Division of Purchase and Property to carry out the Executive Order and monitor its enforcement.

Desperate to limit and manipulate what you can access on the internet ,Governor Murphy’s Executive Order coincides with an announcement from Attorney General Gurbir Grewal who today announced that New Jersey will join 21 other states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit aimed at blocking the FCC’s rollback of net neutrality. That lawsuit was filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in December.

With your freedom in their sights Murphy says , “We are committed to taking whatever legal action we can to preserve the internet rights of New Jersey consumers, and to challenge the federal government’s misguided attack on a free and open internet,” said Attorney General Grewal. “Our position is that the Federal Communications Commission acted arbitrarily and against the evidence before it when doing its about-face on net neutrality.”

Posted on

FCC’s chairman, Ajit Pai, Subject of almost daily Name Calling from Bigots

ajit-pai-titleII-net-neutrality-secret-viaTwitter

January 12.2018

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ, FCC’s chairman, Ajit Pai, became the subject of almost daily persecution by left wing loons and bigots. It seems no figure has been as controversial since Al Gore discovered the Internet in the early 90’s.

alGore_1515233c

It all started with the FCC’s decision to scrap an Obama-era rule implemented in 2015 deemed “net neutrality.” The end of net neutrality will allow internet service providers to, if they choose, privilege the content of providers that they own or support. Pai has been since the target of a campaign of harassment that amounts to a national scandal.

HBO lefty host John Oliver was among the first mainstream cultural figures to organize a net-neutrality campaign, which he dubbed “Go FCC Yourself.” He encouraged followers to bombard the FCC’s website with comments supporting the regulation, and so they did.

According to the NY Post , “Those comments were peppered with claims that Pai was a pedophile, a “dirty, sneaky Indian” who should self-deport and reminders that anonymous online hordes maintain the “power to murder Ajit Pai and his family.” Oliver was eventually compelled to release a video urging his followers to dial back the racism and death threats.”

Matt Rooney of the Save New Jersey blog , ” the Internet survived (and thrived) from the day Al Gore invented it up until 2015 when the Obama Administration imposed so-called ‘net neutrality.’ I suspect it’ll function just fine now that the FCC is rolling back those regs.”

The fact is Net neutrality is misnamed. There’s nothing “neutral” about it. The government controls it. The government regulates it. If you like government regulation, if you like how government regulation retards things, slows things down, gums things up, causes mistakes to be made, then by all means support net neutrality. Net Neutrality was an attempt by the federal government to regulate and control your internet browsing and control your internet feed  and curtail the number of independent information outlets like the Ridgewood blog.

“Net Neutrality” was nothing more than using “Big Brother” as a gate keeper for the internet.Protesting for Net neutrality is like protesting for high taxes , for less freedom , perhaps a trip to social paradise Venezuela will warm you heart instead.

Posted on

Weather, Federal Emergency Management Agency and Federal Communications Commission“Be Smart: Alerts and Warnings” guide

valleyEmergency_theridgewoodblog

December 31,2017

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Paramus NJ, we picked this up form the Paramus Office of Emergency Management . You may not be near a TV or radio to find out when severe weather is approaching. Learn the different ways you can get alerts and warnings by using the “Be Smart: Alerts and Warnings” guide.

Receiving timely information about weather conditions or other emergency events can make all the difference in knowing when to take action to be safe. Local police and fire departments, emergency managers, the National Weather Service (NWS), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and private industry are working together to make sure you can receive alerts and warnings quickly through several different technologies no matter where you are–at home, at school, at work, or in the community. For those with access and functional needs, many messages are TTY/TDD compatible and many devices have accessible accommodations. Review this fact sheet to make sure you will receive critical information as soon as possible so you can take action to be safe. Be sure to share this information with your family, friends, and colleagues. And remember to keep extra batteries for your mobile phone or radio in a safe place or consider purchasing other back-up power supplies such as a car, solar-powered, or hand crank charger.

link: https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/1440448868597-c0112a8bd0aa1c4a62ed44ba68b24d3f/Alerts_and_Warnings_508_20150824.pdf

 

Posted on

The Internet is Once Again Free to Grow and Innovate

FCC Chairman Pai

December 15,2017

the staff of the Ridgewood blog

Washington DC, The FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday to approve chairman Ajit Pai’s plan to repeal “net neutrality” rules backed by the Obama Administration that reclassified internet-service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Title II prohibits “any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services.”

The Net Neutrality rules effectively deemed the internet a utility, former chairman Tom Wheeler turned the FCC ie the Federal Government into a political gatekeeper. The rules prohibited broadband providers from blocking, throttling and favoring content, which Mr. Wheeler ostensibly intended to help large content providers like Google , and Netflix gain leverage against cable companies.

Bans on throttling content may poll well, but the regulations have created uncertainty about what the FCC would or wouldn’t allow. This has in tern  throttled investment. Price discrimination and paid prioritization are used by many businesses. Netflix charges higher prices to subscribers who stream content on multiple devices. Has this made the internet less free?

Mr. Pai’s rules require that broadband providers disclose discriminatory practices unlike now. Thus cable companies would have to be transparent if they throttle content when users reach a data cap or if they speed up live sports programming. Consumers can choose broadband providers and plans accordingly. The Federal Trade Commission will have authority to police predatory and monopolistic practices, as it had prior to Mr. Wheeler’s power grab.

Despite the screams from the left Mr. Pai’s net-neutrality rollback will also support growth in content. Both content producers and consumers will benefit from increased investment in faster wireless and fiber technology. Apple is pouring $1 billion into original content to compete with Amazon, Netflix and YouTube.

Disney is buying the 21st Century Fox assets in an effort to compete with Netflix and other streaming services, build leverage with cable companies and establish a global footprint. Netflix has more than 47 million international subscribers and streams in nearly every country. Fox will keep its news and main sports channels, which can offer “live” content to consumers. The antitrust concerns should be negligible.

More positively consumers will also benefit from the speeding up of the breakdown of the cable monopoly as they offer more customized “bundles” like Hulu or a Disney stream that may cost less and no longer force large expensive packages of channels on customers  Americans will also enjoy new distribution options, which could have been barred by the old net-neutrality rules.

This week T-Mobile announced its acquisition of Layer3 TV, a Denver startup that streams high-definition channels online and will compete with AT&T’s DirecTV Now. Verizon Wireless last month said it will start delivering high-speed broadband to homes over its wireless network late next year. Google and AT&T are experimenting with similar services that will be cheaper than digging dirt to lay cable. This could be a boon for rural America.

Google, YouTube and Facebook have vigorously promoted net neutrality in theory but less in practice. While Google says it remains “committed to the net neutrality policies,” the search engine like Facebook uses opaque algorithms to prioritize and discriminate against certain content, sometimes in ways that undercut competitors. Net neutrality for thee, but not me should be Google , YouTube and Facebooks mantra . In simple terms these providers till search results to favor politically correct view points. Google, YouTube as well as Facebook should be far more transparent about these discriminatory practices.

Technology and markets change faster than the speed of regulation, which Ajit Pai’s FCC has recognized by taking a neutral position and restoring the promise of internet freedom.

Posted on

The “Net Neutrality Scam”

FCC Chairman Pai

“Net Neutrality” a solution looking for a problem 

02/26/2015

by Ryan McMaken

https://mises.org/library/net-neutrality-scam

Yet again, the government wants to fix a problem that doesn’t exist. According to the Obama administration and the FCC, it is necessary to regulate internet service providers so that they don’t interfere with people’s access to the web. The claim immediately prompts one to ask: Who is being denied access to the web?
In the past twenty years, access to the internet has only become more widespread and service today is far faster for many people — including “ordinary” people — than it was twenty years ago, or even ten years ago. Today, broadband in Europe, where the internet is more tightly regulated, has less reach than it has in the United States.
The administration’s plan is rather innocuously called “net neutrality,” but in fact it has nothing at all to do with neutrality and is just a scheme to vastly increase the federal government’s control over the internet.

What is Net Neutrality?
We don’t know the details of the plan because the FCC refuses to let the taxpayers see the 300-page proposal before the FCC votes on it today. But, we do know a few things.
Currently, ISPs are regulated by the FCC, but as an “information service” under the less restrictive rules of so-called Title I. But now, the FCC wants to regulate ISPs as utilities under the far more restrictive Title II restrictions. For a clue as to how cutting edge this idea is, remember this switch to Title II regulation would put ISPs into the same regulatory regime as Ma Bell under the Communications Act of 1934.

So what does this mean for the FCC in practice? According to FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai, “It gives the FCC the power to micromanage virtually every aspect of how the Internet works.” More specifically, Gordon Crovitz at the Wall Street Journal writes:
[With Net Netruality,] bureaucrats can review the fairness of Google’s search results, Facebook’s news feeds and news sites’ links to one another and to advertisers. BlackBerry is already lobbying the FCC to force Apple and Netflix to offer apps for BlackBerry’s unpopular phones. Bureaucrats will oversee peering, content-delivery networks and other parts of the interconnected network that enables everything from Netflix and YouTube to security drones and online surgery.
The administration insists these measures are necessary because — even though there is no evidence that this has actually happened — it is possible that at some point in the future, internet service providers could restrict some content and apps on the internet. Thus, we are told, control of content should be handed over to the federal government to ensure that internet service providers are “neutral” when it comes to deciding what is on the internet and what is not.

Can Goods Be Allocated in a “Neutral” Way?

The problem is that there is no such thing as “neutral” allocation of resources, whether done by government or the marketplace.
In the marketplace, goods and services tend to be allocated according to those who demand the goods the most. Where demand is highest, prices are highest, so goods and services tend to go to where they are most demanded. This makes perfect sense, of course, and also reflects the inherent democracy of the markets. Where larger numbers of people put more resources is where more goods and services will head.

It is this mechanism that drives the marketplaces for food, clothing, and a host of other products. Consequently, both food and clothing have become so plentiful that obesity is a major health problem and second-hand clothing stores, selling barely-worn discarded clothing, are a boom industry, even in affluent neighborhoods. Similarly, cell phones have only become more affordable and more widespread in recent decades.

For industries where new firms may freely enter, and customers are not compelled to buy, companies or individuals that wish to make money must use their resources in ways that are freely demanded by others. Unless they have been granted monopoly power by government, no firm can simply ignore its customers. If they do, competing firms will enter the marketplace with other goods and services.

Although goods allocated in this fashion are — according to the administration — not being allocated “neutrally,” the fact is that more people now have more service at higher speeds than was the case in the past. Furthermore, even if firms (or the government) attempted to allocate goods in a neutral manner, it would be impossible to do so, because neither society nor the physical world are neutral.

In his recent interview on net neutrality, Peter Klein used the analogy of a grocery store. In modern-day grocery stores, suppliers of food and drink will negotiate with stores (using so-called “slotting allowances”) to have their goods advertised near the front of the store or have goods placed on store shelves at eye level.
If government were to tell grocery stores to start being more “neutral” about where it places goods, we can see immediately that such a thing is impossible. After all, somebody’s goods have to be at eye level or near the front of the store. Who is to decide? A handful of government bureaucrats, or thousands of consumers who with their purchases control the success and failure of firms?

In a similar way, bandwidth varies for various ISP clients depending on the infrastructure available, and the resources available to each client. And yet, in spite of the administration’s fear-mongering that ISPs will lock out clients of humble means, and the need to hand all bandwidth over to plutocrats, internet access continues to expand. And who can be surprised? Have grocery stores stopped carrying low-priced nutritious food such as bananas and oatmeal just because Nabisco Corp. pays for better product placement for its costly processed foods? Obviously not.
Who will Control the FCC?

All goods need not be allocated in response to the human-choice-driven price mechanism of the marketplace. Goods and services can also be allocated by political means. That is, states, employing coercive means can seize goods and services and allocate them according to certain political goals and the goals of people in positions of political power. There is nothing “neutral” about this method of allocating resources.

In the net neutrality debate, it’s almost risible that some are suggesting that the FCC will somehow necessarily work in the “public” interest. First of all, we can already see how the FCC regards the public with its refusal to make its own proposals public. Second, who will define who the “public” is? And finally, after identifying who the “public” is, how will the governing bodies of the FCC determine what the “public” wants?

It’s a safe bet there will be no plebiscitary process, so what mechanism will be used? In practice, bureaucratic agencies respond to lobbying and political pressure like any other political institution. Those who can most afford to lobby and provide information to the FCC, however, will not be ordinary people who have the constraints of household budgets and lives to live in places other than Washington, DC office buildings. No, the general public will be essentially powerless because regulatory regimes diminish the market power of customers.

Most of the interaction that FCC policymakers will have with the “public” will be through lobbyists working for the internet service providers, so what net neutrality does is turn the attention of the ISPs away from the consumers themselves and toward the regulatory agency. In the marketplace, a firm’s customers are the most important decision makers. But the more regulated an industry becomes, the more important the regulating agency becomes to the firm’s owners and managers.
The natural outcome will be more “regulatory capture,” in which the institutions with the most at stake in a regulatory agency’s decisions end up controlling the agencies themselves. We see this all the time in the revolving door between legislators, regulators, and lobbyists. And you can also be sure that once this happens, the industry will close itself off to new innovative firms seeking to enter the marketplace. The regulatory agencies will ensure the health of the status quo providers at the cost of new entrepreneurs and new competitors.

Nor are such regulatory regimes even “efficient” in the mainstream use of the term. As economist Douglass North noted, regulatory regimes do not improve efficiency, but serve the interests of those with political power:

Institutions are not necessarily or even usually created to be socially efficient; rather they, or at least the formal rules, are created to serve the interests of those with the bargaining power to create new rules.

So, if populists think net neutrality will somehow give “the people” greater voice in how bandwidth is allocated and ISPs function, they should think again.

Posted on

How the U.S. can win the digital future

ajit-pai-titleII-net-neutrality-secret-viaTwitter

June 22,2017
By AJIT PAI

This week, the White House is hosting a series of meetings between leaders of our economy’s technology sector and administration officials. Dubbed “Tech Week,” these events provide a forum to focus on a critical question: What public sector policies will best spur private sector innovation?

Getting the answer right is vital for our nation’s economic future. Technological innovation opens the door to new industries and platforms, creating jobs and economic growth. The sharing economy, for example, has already given rise to more than a dozen billion-dollar companies, like Airbnb and Lyft. Technology firms currently account for America’s (and the world’s) five most valuable companies.

In order for us to expand prosperity and extend economic opportunity to more Americans, we must remain on the cutting edge. This means that government at all levels must focus on removing barriers to innovation and ensuring that technological advances aren’t strangled by bureaucratic red tape

That’s exactly what we’ve been doing at the Federal Communications Commission this year.

For starters, we’re taking aggressive action to speed the roll-out of next-generation wireless networks. Commonly known as 5G, these new networks promise speeds markedly faster than today’s mobile networks (think about getting gigabit speeds on your smartphone). 5G also promises new applications that will be critical to the development of the “Internet of Things” — that is, a future in which virtually any device can be or is connected to a network. With billions more connected devices, ranging from your car to your appliances, the Internet of Things will impact everything from supply chains to worker productivity. It has the potential to create trillions of dollars in economic value over the next decade.

But to get to the 5G future that will make the Internet of Things fully possible, we’ll need much more infrastructure than what today’s networks demand. 5G will require companies to deploy hundreds of thousands of small cells (operating at lower power), and many more miles of fiber to carry all of the traffic. That’s why the FCC is working on modernizing the rules for that kind of infrastructure. We shouldn’t apply burdensome rules designed for 100-foot towers to small cells the size of a pizza box. If America is to lead the world in 5G, we need to modernize our regulations so that infrastructure can be deployed promptly and at scale.

Another FCC priority has been making the agency more agile and responsive. Bureaucratic inertia can be poison to innovation. That’s why, if an innovator asks the FCC to approve a new technology or service, we’ll make a decision within one year (light-speed by government standards). Federal law already requires the FCC to meet that timeline, but that rule has largely been ignored since its adoption decades ago. Under this administration, those seeking to innovate will no longer need to wait indefinitely for an answer.

Speaking of new technologies, one area where we’re moving quickly is the introduction of the next-generation television standard. This new technical standard is the first one to marry the advantages of broadcasting and the Internet.

Imagine if television stations could offer 4K video, immersive audio, better accessibility features for Americans with disabilities, localized and advanced emergency alerts, and reception on mobile devices.

All of this could be made possible by next-generation television. Our goal is to approve this new standard by the end of the year so that television broadcasters can begin to use it on a voluntary, market-driven basis.

Thanks in part to the administration’s pro-growth policies, there is reason to be optimistic about the state of our economy. Unemployment is at a 16-year low. The stock market is hitting record highs. And, just last week, the Federal Reserve upgraded its forecast for economic growth for 2017.

But we can’t afford to rest on our laurels. To continue creating jobs and growing our economy, we must ensure that regulation and inertia don’t stand in the way of innovation. We’re doing our part at the FCC to make sure that government promotes, rather than inhibits, the technologies of the future.

Ajit Pai is chairman of the Federal Communications Commission.

Posted on

FCC Chairman Pai: ‘We Need an Open and Free Internet for the 21st Century’

FCC Chairman Pai

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Ajit Pai told Breitbart News in an exclusive interview that an open and free internet is vital for America in the 21st century.

During a speech at the Newseum on Wednesday, Pai said he plans to roll back the net-neutrality regulations and to restore the light-touch regulatory system established by President Bill Clinton and Congressional Republicans by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

Net neutrality passed under former Democrat Tom Wheeler’s FCC in 2010. The rule, known as the Open Internet Order, reclassified the internet as a public monopoly. Critics chided the rule, stating that it would diminish the freedom of the internet. Proponents argue that the regulations prevent Internet service providers from discriminating against content providers.

Chairman Pai said during his speech that the internet prospered before net neutrality was enacted. Pai said, “The internet is the greatest free market success in American history.”

Breitbart News asked the FCC chief why he thinks that net neutrality is a problem, and why we must eliminate the rule. He said:

Number one there was no problem to solve, the internet wasn’t broken in 2015. In that situation, it doesn’t seem me that preemptive market-wide regulation is necessary. Number two, even if there was a problem, this wasn’t the right solution to adopt. These Title II regulations were inspired during the Great Depression to regulate Ma Bell which was a telephone monopoly. And the broadband market we have is very different from the telephone market of 1934. So, it seems to me that if you have 4,462 internet service providers and if a few of them are behaving in a way that is anticompetitive or otherwise bad for consumer welfare then you take targeted action to deal with that. You don’t declare the entire market anticompetitive and treat everyone as if they are a monopolist.

Going forward we are going to propose eliminating that Title II classification and figure out the right way forward. The bottom line is, everyone agrees on the principles of a free and open internet what we disagree with is how many regulations are needed to preserve the internet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/28/exclusive-fcc-chairman-pai-need-open-free-internet-21st-century/

 

Posted on

BOMBSHELL: Gottheimer Under Investigation for Pay-for-Play Scandal

Josh Gottheimer

November 1,2016

the staff of the Rmidgewood blog

Ridgewood NJ,  Turns out that Josh Gottheimer has more in common with “family member” Hillary Clinton than he lets on.

While his mentor Hillary Clinton is under FBI scrutiny again, it’s now come out that Josh Gottheimer is currently under investigation by the United States Senate for pay-for-play allegations.

During Gottheimer’s time at the FCC, the FCC granted a conditional waiver to LightSquared, a client of Burson-Marsteller, Gottheimer’s previous employer.

“The National Broadband Plan contains an obscure provision… LightSquared is the primary beneficiary of this provision… Mr. Gottheimer may have contributed to or profited from his employer’s relationship with LightSquared and now, as the lead FCC staffer on the President’s National Broadband Plan, he may have played a role in the consideration of LightSquared’s proposed network.” (Senator Chuck Grassley, “Letter To FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski,” United States Senate, 1/30/11)

Not only did the Senate begin investigating Josh Gottheimer – The Washington Post launched its own investigation into allegations of impropriety on Gottheimer’s part.

In a shocking twist, Gottheimer refused to meet with Members of the Senate, and refused to answer questions about his role in the FCC LightSquared waiver.

Below is the timeline of the LightSquared/Gottheimer scandal – even Democrats joined the chorus of outrage over Gottheimer’s pay-for-play scheme.

November 2009: Clinton confidant Mark Penn’s Burson-Marsteller begins representation of LightSquared (Senator Chuck Grassley, “Letter To FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski,” United States Senate, 1/30/11)

June 23, 2010: Without qualifications or experience, Josh Gottheimer lands the role of FCC Senior Counselor with a special responsibility towards implementing President Obama’s National Broadband Plan (Senator Chuck Grassley, “Letter To FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski,” United States Senate, 1/30/11)

July 20, 2010: A new comprehensive public relations and marketing strategy is launched for LightSquared, spearheaded by Burson

November 18, 2010: LightSquared submits FCC application for authorization

January 19, 2011: California Democrat Rep. Anna Eshoo writes letter of concern about LightSquared waiver request

January 26, 2011: FCC grants conditional waiver to LightSquared

January 30, 2011: Sen. Charles Grassley begins investigation into Josh Gottheimer’s FCC position and his relationship to LightSquared.

February 2, 2011: Washington Democrat Sen. Patty Murray writes letter of concern about LightSquared waiver request

February 8, 2011: – Minnesota Democrat Sen. Amy Klobuchar writes letter of concern about LightSquared waiver request

September 19, 2011: The Washington Post begins an investigation into Josh Gottheimer’s involvement in LightSquare’s FCC waiver

September 23, 2011: The Wall Street Journal launches a LightSquared investigation

March 8, 2012: After months of obfuscating, Gottheimer refuses to meet with Members of the Senate raising questions about his role in the FCC LightSquared waiver

Posted on

FCC commissioner: U.S. tradition of free expression slipping away

big-brother-poster

By RUDY TAKALA (@RUDYTAKALA) • 2/16/16 2:25 PM

The American traditions of free expression and respectful discourse are slipping away, and college campuses and Twitter are prime examples, according to a member of the Federal Communications Commission.

“I think that poses a special danger to a country that cherishes First Amendment speech, freedom of expression, even freedom of association,” FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai told the Washington Examiner. “I think it’s dangerous, frankly, that we don’t see more often people espousing the First Amendment view that we should have a robust marketplace of ideas where everybody should be willing and able to participate.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/fccs-pai-freedom-of-speech-slipping-away/article/2583354