FCC to Propose New 'Net Neutrality' Rules (Vol. Pay for play internet) ++SIGN THE PETITION++

[crcballer55]

[h2]Sign the petition to help save the internet[/h2]
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...ct-freedom-information-united-states/9sxxdBgy
[h2]  [/h2][h2]Proposal Would Allow Broadband Providers to Give Preferential Treatment to Some Traffic[/h2]

By
GAUTHAM NAGESH
CONNECT

Updated April 23, 2014 9:14 p.m. ET

The FCC plans to significantly increase the disclosure requirements for broadband providers. Getty Images

WASHINGTON—Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes.

Regulators are proposing new rules on Internet traffic that would allow broadband providers to charge companies a premium for access to their fastest lanes. John Nakahata, former chief of staff at the FCC, joins the News Hub. Photo: Getty Images.

The Federal Communications Commission plans to put forth its rules on Thursday. The proposal marks the FCC's third attempt at enforcing "net neutrality"—the concept that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.

Developed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler, the proposal is an effort to prevent broadband Internet providers such as Comcast Corp. CMCSA +1.43% ,Verizon Communications Inc., VZ +1.44%and Time Warner Cable TWC +1.10%from blocking or slowing down individual websites served up to the consumer. The idea is that consumers should be able to access whatever content they choose, not the content chosen by the broadband provider.

But it would also allow providers to give preferential treatment to traffic from some content providers, as long as such arrangements are available on "commercially reasonable" terms for all interested content companies. Whether the terms are commercially reasonable would be decided by the FCC on a case-by-case basis.

This latest plan is likely to be viewed as an effort to find a middle ground, as the FCC has been caught between its promise to keep the Internet open and broadband providers' desire to explore new business models in a fast-changing marketplace. It likely won't satisfy everyone, however. Some advocates of an open Internet argue that preferential treatment for some content companies inevitably will result in discriminatory treatment for others.

The proposal would open the door to new products from companies such as AppleInc., AAPL +3.87% which has explored the idea of offering a video service that would rely on a dedicated portion of the broadband pipe. Like the FCC's previous open Internet rules, the proposal wouldn't apply to wireless carriers, which aren't governed by any net-neutrality rules.

The FCC will circulate the proposal on Thursday ahead of a vote to move forward with the proposal at its May 15 meeting. Moving forward would represent a milestone in the long fight over rules governing how service providers treat different kinds of content.

Net neutrality was a key part of President Barack Obama's campaign platform in 2008. The U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit threw out the FCC's last two attempts to implement an open Internet rule after challenges from broadband providers.

On a consumer level, the plan would probably not affect users' Internet experience immediately but over the long term it could spawn new products that use broadband connections in a variety of ways for home and business communications—for an additional fee.

If the rule is adopted, winners would be the major broadband providers that would be able to charge both consumers and content providers for access to their networks. Companies like Google Inc. GOOGL -0.02% or Netflix Inc. NFLX -2.44% that offer voice or video services that rely on broadband could take advantage of such arrangements by paying to ensure that their traffic reaches consumers without disruption. Those companies could pay for preferential treatment on the "last mile" of broadband networks that connects directly to consumers' homes.

Startups and other small companies not capable of paying for preferential treatment are likely to suffer under the proposal, say net neutrality supporters, along with content companies that might have to pay a toll to guarantee optimal service.

One top cable executive said, "I have to say, I'm pleased." The executive noted that big Internet companies like Google already pay middlemen carriers to deliver their content efficiently to the doorstep of cable operators' networks; only the last mile connecting to customers' homes has been treated differently by regulators.

Major technology companies including Google, Facebook Inc., FB -2.72% MicrosoftCorp. MSFT +2.41% , Amazon.com Inc., AMZN -2.39% Yahoo Inc. YHOO -1.42% andeBay Inc., EBAY -0.15% either didn't respond to requests for comment or referred requests to the Internet Association, a trade group representing Web companies including Google and Yahoo. The Internet Association didn't respond to requests for comment.

The executive said new business models coming out of such rules could help cable operators better invest in their broadband networks. "Somebody has to pay for this, and if they weren't going to let companies pay for enhanced transport and delivery…it just seemed like this was going to come back to the consumer."

A spokesman for Verizon, which successfully challenged the commission's original open Internet rules, said the broadband provider remains "publicly committed to ensuring that customers can access the Internet content they want, when they want and how they want."

"Given the tremendous innovation and investment taking place in broadband Internet markets, the FCC should be very cautious about adopting proscriptive rules that could be unnecessary and harmful," he said.

John T. Nakahata, an attorney with Wiltshire & Grannis LLP who works on telecom and Internet policy, said Wednesday the FCC's potential opening of preferred broadband access "follows exactly the path left open by the courts."

In Silicon Valley, there has been a long-standing unease with owners of broadband pipes treating some content as more equal than others. Large companies have been mostly silent about the FCC's moves regarding broadband service, but some smaller firms or investors in startups have said the FCC needs to tread carefully so Internet policies don't disadvantage young companies that can't afford tolls to the Web.

"For technologists and entrepreneurs alike this is a worst-case scenario," said Eric Klinker, chief executive of BitTorrent Inc., a popular Internet technology for people to swap digital movies or other content. "Creating a fast lane for those that can afford it is by its very definition discrimination."

Some consumer advocacy groups reacted strongly against the proposal. The American Civil Liberties Union said, "If the FCC embraces this reported reversal in its stance toward net neutrality, barriers to innovation will rise, the marketplace of ideas on the Internet will be constrained, and consumers will ultimately pay the price." Free Press, a nonpartisan organization that is a frequent critic of the FCC, said, "With this proposal, the FCC is aiding and abetting the largest ISPs in their efforts to destroy the open Internet."

The proposal doesn't address the separate issue of back-end interconnections, or peering, between content providers and broadband networks. Netflix CEO Reed Hastingsrecently called for the FCC to regulate peering as part of net neutrality, but Mr. Wheeler has said the two issues are distinct.

Netflix declined to comment.

As part of the rules, the FCC would significantly increase the amount of information broadband providers must disclose about their networks, which could include details such as the speed and congestion of their service along the last mile. The proposal would also ask whether mobile broadband providers should be subject to a similar commercially reasonable standard when striking deals with content providers.

Mr. Wheeler said he planned to issue new open Internet rules in February after the D.C. Circuit court decision.

The court's ruling sketched out a legal pathway through which the FCC could try to achieve the same goals, and Mr. Wheeler said he plans on following that road map.

The court said in January that the FCC has authority to regulate broadband-company practices under a section of the 1996 telecommunications law that gives it broad authority to encourage U.S. broadband service. The court also indicated that the FCC could impose a "no blocking" rule if it found a different legal justification.

Asked about the new proposal, an FCC spokesman said details like the construction of a "commercially reasonable" standard, and the manner in which disputes would be resolved, are all "among the topics on which the FCC will be seeking comment."

The commission has decided for now against reclassifying broadband as a public utility, which would subject ISPs to much greater regulation. However, the commission has left the reclassification option on the table at present.

---

 

[milestailsprowe]

Who ever came up with Pay to play at the FCC needs to be shot for selling out to companies in such a terrible way. I'm sure a Lobbyist got to him and it shows. If the President has the power to shoot down this terrible thing then he needs to do it ASAP before it sets precedence because it make the internet America what Corps what you to have and see. Also Cable bills will SHOT UP with such a thing

 

[am1x90xnike]

I see the goo...well the not so bad in this. But there is a high potential for abuse in the net neutrality. It's far above my techno - pay grade, but I think it's the most important issue in the interwebz, I will try to stay informed.

I think the biggest danger is creating two internets, poorer people will not be able to afford interwebz.

 

[joe quimby]

If your not trying to be an expert at something, whats the point of school at this point? Seriously. So much information you can get in a matter of seconds with this internet ****

 

[obeahmyal7]

Thanks for posting this. Dan GIllmor of the Guardian offers some concrete ways to fight back.

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/24/fcc-net-neutrality-tom-wheeler-stop-rules

In January, a federal appeals court rejected regulations  designed to assure some measure of fairness in the way America's internet service providers (ISPs) handle information traveling through their networks. The problem, according to the court, was not so much that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) couldn't insist on what is called "network neutrality" – the idea that customers, rather than ISPs, should decide priorities for information they get online. No, the issue was that the FCC had tried to impose broadband rules under the wrong regulatory framework. And the court all but invited the FCC to fix its own mistake and rewrite its own updated rules.

The FCC's new chairman, the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, said he would comply, rather than appeal. "Preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this agency," he said in a February statement.

Now, based on a slew  of frightening  news reports  last night and a"clarification"  from the FCC late this morning, we know how the agency – or at least the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler – proposes to respond: it won't exercise its supreme regulatory authority in the manner the court suggested.

No, not at all.

Rather, the FCC will say – loud and proud – that it is fixing the open-web problem while actually letting it get worse, by providing a so-called "fast lane" for carriers to hike fees on sites trying to reach customers like you and me. Which, inevitably, would mean you and I start paying more to use those sites – if we aren't already.

This is a potentially tragic turning point in American politics and policy. We are on the verge of turning over the internet – the most important communications system ever invented– to telecoms that grew huge through the government granting them monopoly status. Barring a genuine shift in policy or a court stepping in to ensure fair treatment of captive customers – or better yet, genuine competition – companies like Verizon and Comcast will have staggering power to decide what bits of information reach your devices and mine, in what order and at what speed. That is, assuming we're permitted to get that information at all.

Do we want an open internet? Do we want digital innovation and free speech to thrive? If we continue down the regulatory road pursued by the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, all of those good things will be in serious jeopardy.

Now, in the interest of fairness, it's important to quote the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler's reaction to the news leaks, which obviously came from his office. After a brief statement  last night, today comesa blog post  called "Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules", in which the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler says his new proposal "would establish that behavior harmful to consumers or competition by limiting the openness of the Internet will not be permitted."

The proposed rules, according to the blog post, would require:

1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;

2. That no legal content may be blocked; and

3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

It's unclear why the FCC has the right even to enforce this under the current non-rules, but never mind that. More to the point is what the rules would allow: the oligopoly ISPs, by all reports, would have the right to cut special deals with web companies to give them that fast lane.

This is an outright perversion of network neutrality. We pay our ISPs for access to the internet, to get a certain speed – we're promised "up to" that speed, which is almost never delivered, because the industry's sleazy but common sleight-of-hand marketing is permitted by the FCC and other regulators.

Consider: an ISP like, say, Time Warner Cable, tells, say, Google that its YouTube videos won't reach us at the, say, "gold package" speed we've already paid for ... unless Google, too, pays a gold-standard fee. That is nothing short of a protection racket, run by a company that has little or no competition. In an actually competitive market, an ISP couldn't conceivably get away with such a thing.

Not everything about the proposed rules, as leaked, is awful. Forcing ISPs to be much more transparent about the level of service they actually provide, for example, is highly useful. Getting them to comply honestly, given their record, is another story.

If you live in America and believe in an open internet, don't waste your time sinking into despair over politicians' betrayals. A little anger wouldn't hurt, but aiming it at the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler is pointless. Focus your attention on the people who he works for, and who allegedly work for you. Start with President Obama, whose unequivocal vow as a candidate  to support an open internet was as empty as so many of his other promises, if not an outright lie.

Don't stop with Obama, of course. He's made it absolutely clear which side he's on (hint: not ours). We all need to ask our legislators – in your communities, in your states, in Washington – whether they want to discourage innovation and free speech by giving control of this essential public utility to a tiny oligopoly. Then:

• At the local level, push for community broadband  networks, owned and operated by the public. (Waiting for Google Fiber? You might as well wait to win the lottery. Google is not your daddy, or your savior.) The community broadband success stories  are already dramatic ...
• ... so dramatic that the telecom cartel has frantically worked to get state legislatures to prevent them from existing  in the first place. Tell your state legislators that this is an unacceptable intrusion on your community's right to govern itself.
• Finally, tell your member of the US House of Representatives and your US senators that they have a job to do – to ensure the future of innovation and free speech in a digital world. In particular, tell them that internet access is a public utility and should be treated as such.

There are two ways to prevent abuses by the owners of public utilities. One is to regulate them. Remember that advice from the appeals court? The FCC could re-classify Internet access as a "telecommunications service" (as opposed to the current, largely unregulated "information service") and require neutral treatment by ISPs. For the moment, this may well be the best choice, but we need to be clear that doing this would not be simple nor without unintended consequences.

Another, better fix is to create genuine competition, or at least the conditions for it. The simplest path forward here would be to require the monopoly/oligopoly ISPs – remember, they got this big in the first palce because they were once granted exclusive rights to "serve" their geographic communities – to share their lines, at a fair price, with competing ISPs. This is what many other countries do, and we should give it a try here.

The best solution? Taxpayers should pay for a fiber-everywhere system, then let competing ISPs use it to compete in a genuine free market. But do not hold your breath on that one.

The sky hasn't fallen with today's FCC announcements. Let's not panic. But if we don't start getting serious about this, as a public, we will lose the most important medium in human history. That would be worse than tragic.

 

[crcballer55]

Who ever came up with Pay to play at the FCC needs to be shot for selling out to companies in such a terrible way. I'm sure a Lobbyist got to him and it shows. If the President has the power to shoot down this terrible thing then he needs to do it ASAP before it sets precedence because it make the internet America what Corps what you to have and see. Also Cable bills will SHOT UP with such a thing

It's actually just an incestuous relationship between the FCC & the cable/telcos. It's not so much that Tom Wheeler was influenced by lobbyists as he used to be one himself and he will go back to working for a cable company once his tenure is up. Same thing with his predecessor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC)

 

[milestailsprowe]

It's actually just an incestuous relationship between the FCC & the cable/telcos. It's not so much that Tom Wheeler was influenced by lobbyists as he used to be one himself and he will go back to working for a cable company once his tenure is up. Same thing with his predecessor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wheeler_(FCC)

Honestly putting People like that in such positions leaves me conflicted. You want people who know what they are talking about and experienced in the field but you dont want people who will put their own lives so far above they people they are supposed to help. He obviously wants to run the internet and thats what he did.

 

[dipsetgeneral]

I'm so lost right now

 

[nazdrowie]

Honestly putting People like that in such positions leaves me conflicted. You want people who know what they are talking about and experienced in the field but you dont want people who will put their own lives so far above they people they are supposed to help. 

if you think thats bad, you should see who gets appointed as ambassadors.

something like 10% of appointees come from the foreign service, the rest are usually from major political donors. 

"President Obama used to say that he wanted to rely more on career diplomats to serve as U.S. ambassadors. But the State Department's professional association, the American Foreign Service Association or AFSA, says that he has named a higher percentage of political appointees than his predecessors. He's given plum assignments to political donors such as Bell, who have made headlines recently with embarrassing gaffes at their confirmation hearings."



but what else is new in this damn town 

 

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Nothing like ruining the best resource of the past 15 years. Greed is gonna destroy this planet.

 

[zapatohead408]

Can someone please put cliffs? I'm attempting to understand.

Essentially, it would make it so in order to get on (say for example) NT I would need to pay for it, and pay more to make it fast?

Already paying like 50 something for this damn Xfinity that NEVER works.

 

[Coromanti]

The Oligarchy is fighting back man...

Restriction of information is the easiest way to keep hold over the masses.

1. Government is owned by the rich and the corporations.

2. Police brutality is so common that even the news covers it as a regular story (instead of a sensation story).

3. Increased productivity but stagnant wages.

4. Now restriction of information.

I hope the conservatives on this board are happy.

 

[jewseejay]

Nothing like ruining the best resource of the past 15 years. Greed is gonna destroy this planet.

 

[jewseejay]

The Oligarchy is fighting back man...
Restriction of information is the easiest way to keep hold over the masses.

1. Government is owned by the rich and the corporations.
2. Police brutality is so common that even the news covers it as a regular story (instead of a sensation story).
3. Increased productivity but stagnant wages.
4. Now restriction of information.

I hope the conservatives on this board are happy.

Zo gif ... Ol dave chappelle conspiracy theory brutha

Your right tho
They dont want you to so easily be able to see whats gappening everywhere at a given moment... As times get worse panic would spread 1000000x faster. Self preservation...

 

[jking0821]

So basically the internet will still be free....but there will start to be segregation. You will be able to pay more for faster connections. Which will take you through dedicated faster networks. So as stated earlier n the thread it doesn't sound like this will effect anything right away but over time will lead to a poorer/slow internet group of people and a richer/faster internet group of people.

I think you can see the issues arising with the potential for abuse here. Some one correct me if i have a wrong interpretation of this from just reading that article

Rather, the FCC will say – loud and proud – that it is fixing the open-web problem while actually letting it get worse, by providing a so-called "fast lane" for carriers to hike fees on sites trying to reach customers like you and me. Which, inevitably, would mean you and I start paying more to use those sites – if we aren't already.

This is a potentially tragic turning point in American politics and policy. We are on the verge of turning over the internet – the most important communications system ever invented– to telecoms that grew huge through the government granting them monopoly status. Barring a genuine shift in policy or a court stepping in to ensure fair treatment of captive customers – or better yet, genuine competition – companies like Verizon and Comcast will have staggering power to decide what bits of information reach your devices and mine, in what order and at what speed. That is, assuming we're permitted to get that information at all.

Do we want an open internet? Do we want digital innovation and free speech to thrive? If we continue down the regulatory road pursued by the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, all of those good things will be in serious jeopardy.

the worry becomes if you pay more for faster connection then you will eventually have to pay more for certain content all together...which obviously leads to these big companies controlling what you know vs what you don't know

 

[yeah]

Contact your representatives... Not that I think it will make much of a difference.

As someone who works in the tech sector, this is literally the worst thing since Bell tried to take over the phone line game. Its so bad that I don't even want to explain, because it will make me look like some conspiracy psycho...but just IMAGINE all the bad that could happen if companies were allowed to charge you to access certain stuff. Not just a fast lane, but imagine that you literally can't go to any website outside of the "Partner Networks" that ISPs bundle.

Want to go to niketalk.com? Extra $5 on your bill. Want to go to an objective news site? $10. Want to publish your own content? You're done before you even got started.

I really hope that Google, Wikipedia, and others fight back like they did when SOPA happened. The FCC asked for opinions, the overwhelming response was No, and they are STILL trying to do something like this. That, to me, makes it seem that the common person's vote doesn't really matter anymore.

 

[AEA18]

So basically the internet will still be free....but there will start to be segregation. You will be able to pay more for faster connections. Which will take you through dedicated faster networks. So as stated earlier n the thread it doesn't sound like this will effect anything right away but over time will lead to a poorer/slow internet group of people and a richer/faster internet group of people.

I think you can see the issues arising with the potential for abuse here. Some one correct me if i have a wrong interpretation of this from just reading that article

Rather, the FCC will say – loud and proud – that it is fixing the open-web problem while actually letting it get worse, by providing a so-called "fast lane" for carriers to hike fees on sites trying to reach customers like you and me. Which, inevitably, would mean you and I start paying more to use those sites – if we aren't already.

This is a potentially tragic turning point in American politics and policy. We are on the verge of turning over the internet – the most important communications system ever invented– to telecoms that grew huge through the government granting them monopoly status. Barring a genuine shift in policy or a court stepping in to ensure fair treatment of captive customers – or better yet, genuine competition – companies like Verizon and Comcast will have staggering power to decide what bits of information reach your devices and mine, in what order and at what speed. That is, assuming we're permitted to get that information at all.

Do we want an open internet? Do we want digital innovation and free speech to thrive? If we continue down the regulatory road pursued by the former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler, all of those good things will be in serious jeopardy.

the worry becomes if you pay more for faster connection then you will eventually have to pay more for certain content all together...which obviously leads to these big companies controlling what you know vs what you don't know

 

[am1x90xnike]

The simplest way I heard it explained was that Internet companies will start charging like an electric bill or phone bill: the more you use the more you pay.

Because of how ubiquitous the Internet is, in order to get fast Internet you'll be paying out the yang; creating a De facto tier system in our access to the Internet, this our access to information. It'll allow carriers to 'censor' what they want you to see based on how much you want to pay.

This is very dangerous to the Internet as we know it. I'm always inclined to say restricting access to anything is bad, but I still don't exactly understand net neutrality, so ill hold off on saying its bad until I know more.

Also...people will still be able to read books, so it's not as if this would send us into the dark ages of information; that's a little hyperbolic.

 

[crcballer55]

Can someone please put cliffs? I'm attempting to understand.

Essentially, it would make it so in order to get on (say for example) NT I would need to pay for it, and pay more to make it fast?

Already paying like 50 something for this damn Xfinity that NEVER works.

I highlighted the main parts in Yellow in the article.

Basically, they'll either slow down, or prevent access to certain websites unless they agree to pay the ISP's for service. Think of cable where you can't access certain channels unless you pay for them. Since we already pay for internet access based on speed, this would be like double dipping. We're paying for speed, but the websites have to pay for access to the consumers. Comcast was actually caught throttling service to multiple markets last year with Netflix customers. Since Netflix uses such a large amount of bandwidth, they slowed down service to the consumers so the service was essentially unusable. This is troubling not only for the obvious, but because Comcast offers competing services and they're also given government granted monopolies in the markets they're in. It's a bit more complicated, but that's the jist of the argument.

 

[tr1ll]

The internet scares people of power, because what a person views and, most importantly, who views it, really cant be controlled.

Trying to make information a luxury.

 

[yeah]

This is very dangerous to the Internet as we know it. I'm always inclined to say restricting access to anything is bad, but I still don't exactly understand net neutrality, so ill hold off on saying its bad until I know more.

Also...people will still be able to read books, so it's not as if this would send us into the dark ages of information; that's a little hyperbolic.

Unless your name is Comcast, Charter, or you're planning on taking over a multi-billion dollar internet provider....its bad. Trust me.

The peering arrangement was bad enough. This is a slap in the face to the American public. The only reason Comcast & Co even control those lines is due to some shady lobbying that essentially forced municipal districts to either develop their own infrastructure or do business with Comcast and no one else.

In all, its a very complex situation. But, its bad for consumers. Bad for schools. Bad for everyone EXCEPT Comcast, and they're gonna get away with it.

 

[ben roethlisberger]

Ask yourselves why this is potentially happening?

I think it's time to abolish the conditioned word "conspiracy", because the paper trail clearly points in the direction of these "conspiracies" being nothing but truth they don't want you to know. How can they restrict this new paradigm shift of transparent truth? Well, you just read the article above.

Peaceful revolt will be called upon all, albeit it should have been happened already, better late than never.

 

[ben roethlisberger]

Unless your name is Comcast, Charter, or you're planning on taking over a multi-billion dollar internet provider....its bad. Trust me.

The peering arrangement was bad enough. This is a slap in the face to the American public. The only reason Comcast & Co even control those lines is due to some shady lobbying that essentially forced municipal districts to either develop their own infrastructure or do business with Comcast and no one else.

In all, its a very complex situation. But, its bad for consumers. Bad for schools. Bad for everyone EXCEPT Comcast, and they're gonna get away with it.

Corporations and governments only get away with **** because WE the public are either too scared to do anything, don't know what we can do or are simply asleep and believe in a fairy tale land where the government and corporations give a **** about us.

Simply cancel your comcast subscription.

Americans can't fathom the idea of not watching tv. We love our bubble too much. We depend on the bubble. We are not sovereign and frankly, I don't think the average person even knows what that means in America.

Just take a look at other countries protesting in the thousands when their liberties are taken from them.

What do we do when our liberties are taken away? Continue to have our face down in our lap and we continue to live our mindless drone life.

Feel any type of way you'd like about that, but the truth is the truth.

 

[trynafeelmink]

Corporations and governments only get away with **** because WE the public are either too scared to do anything, don't know what we can do or are simply asleep and believe in a fairy tale land where the government and corporations give a **** about us.

Simply cancel your comcast subscription.

Americans can't fathom the idea of not watching tv. We love our bubble too much. We depend on the bubble. We are not sovereign and frankly, I don't think the average person even knows what that means in America.

Just take a look at other countries protesting in the thousands when their liberties are taken from them.

What do we do when our liberties are taken away? Continue to have our face down in our lap and we continue to live our mindless drone life.

Feel any type of way you'd like about that, but the truth is the truth.

It's Crazy to me.... or maybe i'm just crazy for expecting anything more.... there is very little media coverage about this, and i knew ever since the Sopa act was tried that Government would be trying hard to go in this direction

 

[johnnyredstorm]

Average American has no clue about any of this stuff going on. And unfortunately, they'll be the first ones looking around aimlessly asking for help and how this all happened.

You want change, Americans need to stop buying into the system and just unite peacefully. Stop listening and supporting the rhetoric and ideas that separate us all. A nation full of people preaching about love and refusing to succumb to the system's violence and negativity will bring light to the entire planet.