There Goes the Internet

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

With the “compromise” on Internet neutrality, President Obama has betrayed another campaign promise, and this time has no excuse that the Republicans made him do it. The outcome was really never in doubt, since Obama named as his FCC chairman a man who helped make radio and television into a corporate wasteland, under Bill Clinton’s administration.


There Goes the Internet

A Black Agenda Radio commentary by Glen Ford

Obama signed the death warrant for Internet Neutrality when he appointed Julius Genachowski as FCC chairman.”

The Federal Communications Commission’s failure to ensure Internet neutrality signals the beginning of a kind of Oklahoma land rush up and down the digital highways. The FCC has fired the starting pistol to allow giant telecommunications corporations to make their mad dash into what was formerly public space, and stake their own, private claims while charging rent and tolls and fees from horizon to horizon. We, the public, are to be treated like the Indians of Oklahoma, in 1889, dispossessed in favor of business and commerical interests. President Obama is the Great Father in Washington who spoke with forked tongue when he swore that he would “take a backseat to no one” in the cause of Internet neutrality.

President Obama, of course, controls a majority on the FCC, and is ultimately responsible for the commission’s decision. He can’t claim that the Republicans forced his hand by holding anything hostage. No, Obama stabbed Internet neutrality in the back because that’s the job description of a corporate politician – to facilitate the orderly dispensing of public property to private pockets.

The FCC decision was described as a “compromise” between public and corporate interests. Politicians like Barack Obama believe that corporations have an inalienable right to make ever-increasing profits, and that right supersedes any claims by the non-corporate citizenry. Therefore, it is perfectly logical that the wireless sector of the Internet – which is growing by leaps and bounds and holds the most promise of fantastic profits – become a playground for the corporations, who will be allowed to do pretty much as they see fit. On the non-mobile side of the Internet, the FCC’s new rules are full of loopholes, allowing Internet carriers to create fast lanes for higher paying companies and customers. Think of the Internet as a vast plain on which a great city is to be built. Now, consider that a few huge corporations will be given the privilege to draw the grid for that new city, and to decide who gets to live in the high-class neighborhoods, and who winds up in the ghetto.

The FCC’s new rules are full of loopholes, allowing Internet carriers to create fast lanes for higher paying companies and customers.”

The FCC's decision was totally predictable. Just as Obama guaranteed that the banks would would rob the U.S. Treasury blind, when he brought Bill Clinton's old Wall Street gang into the White House, so Obama signed the death warrant for Internet Neutrality when he appointed Julius Genachowski as FCC chairman. Genachowski was the top communications advisor to the Clinton White House and an architect of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. That infamous legislation led directly to the greatest corporate consolidation of radio and television stations in American history. Julius Genachowski is one of the reasons that today's radio and TV landscape is such a wasteland of corporate sameness. Now, he is positioned to do the same thing to the Internet, courtesy of Barack Obama, the guy who never made a promise he wasn't prepared to break.

For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to

BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at [email protected].



I guess it will be in our interest to support the rethugs quest to destroy the Obama FCC:

The Net Neutrality Coup

The campaign to regulate the Internet was funded by a who's who of left-liberal foundations.

Republicans Vow to Take Down FCC's Net Neutrality Rules,2817,2374661,00.asp

Save the Net; Abolish the FCC

FCC Internet Grab a Christmas Nightmare

Internet Gets New Rules of the Road

Consumers Guaranteed Right to View Content; Service Providers Allowed to Sell Faster, Priority Speeds for Extra Money

Hands off tomorrow's Internet

Whose Internet Is It, Anyway?

The FCC's new "net neutrality" rules only muddle the picture.


How the FCC plans to seize authority over the internet

As part of a long-term plan to control content on the internet, the FCC is now attempting to assert authority over the internet in the same way it has long exercised content censorship authority over broadcast television and radio.

The reason you can't say those seven dirty words on broadcast television, in other words, is because the FCC controls broadcast television content and can simply revoke the broadcast licenses of any television station that refuses to comply. This is the same tactic, in the internet world, of yanking a web site's domain name, which the Department of Homeland Security has already begun doing over the last several weeks:

The FCC also controls content on the radio and can yank the broadcast licenses of any radio stations that refuse to comply with its content censorship. This is why operators of "pirate radio stations" are dealt with so harshly: For the government to allow any radio station to operate outside its censorship and control is to invite dissent.

The internet, of course, has been operating freely and without any real government censorship for roughly two decades. In that time, it has grown to be what is arguably the most influential medium in the world for information distribution. Most importantly, the internet is the medium of information freedom that is not controlled by any government.

The U.S. government wants to change all that, and they've dispatched the FCC to reign in the "freedoms" of the internet.

How to crush internet Free Speech

The first step to the FCC's crushing of internet freedom is to assert authority over the internet by claiming to run the show. The FCC, of course, has no legal authority over the internet. It was only granted authority in 1934 over broadcast communications in the electromagnetic spectrum -- you know, radio waves and antennas, that kind of thing.

There is nothing in the Communications Act of 1934 that grants the FCC any authority over the internet because obviously the internet didn't exist then, and it would have been impossible for lawmakers in the 1930's to imagine the internet as it operates today.

So instead of following the law, the FCC is trying to "fake" its way into false authority over the internet by claiming authority in the current "net neutrality" debate. By asserting its authority with net neutrality, the FCC will establish a beachhead of implied authority from which it can begin to control and censor the internet.

This is why "net neutrality" is a threat to internet freedom. It's not because of anything to do with net neutrality itself, but rather with the FCC's big power grab in its assertion that it has authority over websites just like it has authority over broadcast radio.

The FCC may soon tell you what you can post on the internet

Where is this all heading? Once the FCC establishes a foothold on the 'net, it can then assert that it has the power to tell you what to post on the internet. Here's how it might unfold:

First, the FCC will simply ban what it calls "information traitors," which will include people like Julian Assange (Wikileaks) who publish state secrets. (Technically Julian Assange can't be a traitor since he's not even American in the first place, but don't expect the FCC to care about this distinction.)

Once the public is comfortable with that, the FCC will advance its agenda to include "information terrorists" which will include anything posted about Ron Paul, the federal reserve and the counterfeit money supply, G. Edward Griffin, or anything from true U.S. patriots who defend the Constitution. The anti-state website (where some of my own articles have appeared from time to time) would also be immediately banned because its information is so dangerous to government control.

After that censorship is in place, the FCC will likely begin to push the corporate agenda by banning websites that harm the profits of large corporations. This will include, of course, websites like which teach people about health freedom, nutritional cures, natural remedies and alternatives to Big Pharma's high-profit pharmaceuticals.

The way this will come about is that the FCC may require a license to publish health information on the web, in much the same way that states currently license doctors to practice medicine. This is how conventional medicine has operated its monopoly for so long, by the way: By controlling the licensing of doctors at the state level. Any doctor who dares prescribe nutritional supplements or suggest that medication might be harmful to a patient immediately gets stripped of his license to practice medicine (and thereby put out of business). The FCC will likely do the same thing across the internet. Sites that publish health information without a license will be deemed "a threat to public health" and be seized by the government.

The first target? Anti-vaccine websites. Vaccines are so crucial to the continuation of disease and medical enslavement in America that any site questioning the current vaccine mythology will be deemed a threat to public health -- or perhaps even a "terrorism" organization.

Essentially, once the FCC has gained power and authority over the internet, it will use that power to push a Big Government / Big Business agenda that censors the truth, keeps people trapped in a system of disinformation, and silences anyone who challenges the status quo.

The FCC is poised to become the FDA of internet information, banning alternative speech and enforcing an information monopoly engineered by powerful corporations.

Think of the FCC as the new the Ministry of Truth from George Orwell's novel 1984:

All government agencies seek to expand their power

What do the FCC, FDA, TSA, DEA, FTC and USDA all have in common?

They all want more power. They want more authority, bigger budgets and more control over the world around them. They are like cancer tumors, growing in size and toxicity while they consume more and more by stealing resources from a healthy host. The bigger these cancer tumors become, the more dangerous they become to the health of the host body, and the more urgently they need to be held in check or excised from the body entirely.

There is no such thing as a government agency that wants to be smaller, with shrinking budgets and fewer employees on the taxpayer payroll. Government departments -- just like people -- incessantly seek more power even at the expense of freedom among those they claim to serve. And this move by the FCC to assume control over the internet is one of the most dangerous power grabs yet witnessed in the short history of the information age.

By the way, one of the reasons we created and launched www.NaturalNews.TV was because we wanted a video site that could not be turned off by YouTube. You've probably heard the horror stories of famous content producers like Alex Jones having their YouTube accounts suddenly terminated. NaturalNews.TV is a safe haven for alternative health content that cannot be turned off by a large corporation that doesn't recognize the value of health freedom.

CN: Its About Control_Who Controls the Gov't;

CN: The small gov't vs big gov't argument may have some merit -but- more relevant is who controls the gov't IE: is it controlled by & for the People [general public] -or- [as is the case now] is it controlled by & for the Biz & Power Elites. Is it run openly for all to see & evaluate properly, or is it run basically covertly [as is the case now - w the pretense of open gov't]. This is why this yr's supreme court ruling supporting the idea that Corps are 'persons' & corp political money is 'free speech' along w influential {semi}secret 'think tanks' & 'societies' to which too many in gov't belong are so dangerous- to the general public. And also the revolving door of officials between the so-called private [IE: Corp / Big-Biz] sector & the public [gov't] sector [thus all this about private sector {Corps} being more efficient than the public sector is HYPE, further officials of Corps generally go to the same schools as officials in Gov't]. So either gov't is run by & for the people -or- by & for the elites [one might hope for a meeting of the minds between these 2 polarities - but that might be a pipe dream]. And right now it may look like its run for the people -BUT- the hard reality is- IT ISN'T. The elites are in control of gov't & are setting the agenda for the rest of us w gov't as the means of enforcing their agenda. Many on the so-called 'left' are upset at another recent court ruling - that the Obama health-care bill's provision mandating that all must buy Corp health insurance is unconstitutional- but I'm not. This is a wind-fall for the so-called 'insurance' industry w gov't enforcement. If he wanted a mandate he should have mandated the roll-out of Medicare for all, or mandated that all gov't agencies [municipal, county, state & federal] must offer the public option to gov't workers in their insurance plan packages, along w all major Corps [w exceptions & allowances for small - mid size businesses]... The very idea that gov't is going to FORCE every private person to buy Corp insurance even if its inadequate, un-affordable, or un-needed, is a violation of people's freedoms & even privacy. But if you are trapped in the so-called 'left' vs 'right' - Dems vs GOP paradigm [also a system of mass control], you will reflexively defend Obama & the Dems just because the judge who ruled against this 'Obama-Care' mandate is a conservative GOPer. 

Why is it that the Dept of Homeland Security seems focused on File-sharing Sites, Wikileaks, & Alex Jones- w these type of sites are being targeted by the Gov't, even without a court ruling, yet they [including Wikileaks] pose no real terrorist threat??? In the case of Jones & Wikileaks its about [as Jones puts it] The Info War for Your Mind. In the case of file-sharing sites [or site w links to file-sharing sites] its about protecting Corp interests [IE: those of the Elites] because file-sharing basically has little to do w SECURITY. Also the fact that they've targeted these types of sites yet porn sites [even child porn & S/M torture porn sites] have been & still are readily available on the internet since the early-mid 1990s [a main-stay of the FCC's original mandate was to monitor broadcast content for excessive- profanity & nudity, wanton gratuitous violence, etc], but are not blocked should make one go HUUMM. Remember- PORN IS BIG BIZ these days. Many Corps in the entertainment, broadcast, publishing, & hotel industries are semi-Covertly involved in it.

Part of the reason for Gov't that's gotten too big which usually gets a pass by so-call Deficit Hawks [who generally focus on Social Security, Medicare, Welfare & Unemployment Benefits, etc - which has to do w Gov't's duty to 'Insure the General {Public's} Welfare'{IE: well-being]- Is the $Trillion a yr Military Intel Security Industrial [IE: BIG-BIZ] Complex that failed miserably [supposedly] on 9-11 - yet expanded Greatly [IE: DHS] after 9-11. Another reason - It should not be the role of Gov't to enforce copy-right infringements [IE: file-sharing] for Big-Biz - Corps have enough resources to make their on cases [on a case by case basis] & present them in court to sue for Civil [NOT CRIMINAL] judgments. Gov't law enforcement's role is to insure public safety [as well as insuring the general public's welfare / well-being] - copy-right infringement generally does not threaten public safety [or even the public's welfare / well-being].

At the mercy of my internet service provider - how long online?

My internet service provider is via a wireless device put into my rebuilt, used computer at my home.  I don't have cable, tv, cell phone and don't plan to.  My access to the internet is at the mercy of my ISP (internet service provider) - a mobile phone company.  Exempt from the new regs.  This was confirmed on the radio show "Off the Hook", a hacker show sponsored by, when I called in two weeks ago to ask. 

My service already is rotten at peak times, such as weekends and so slow that I can't get a on to a website at peak times = not online at those times. 

The point is well made: Obama can't blame anyone but Obama and neither can "supporters" continue the denial...

or can they?

I'll pay as long as I can for the service provider, as my rent goes up and up (despite rent stabilization....) and my social security statement of what I'm getting next year just arrived:

no change.  Same amount as this year.  Only during the Obama presidency has Social Security stopped increasing with new year and we'll be lucky if not cut back.  Feh.


A lot of things in our life

A lot of things in our life are related to internet. E-mail accounts, social networking, even buying on-line is a part of our life.A lot of people search on Internet Yellow Pages what they want to find, many experience this new technology era and wonder how the world changes. I just hope that internet will not have the same destiny as television had in US.

В 1857 г., попавши в Петербурге, попробовал

: Гуревич П.С. Культурология: Учебник. , 1999. М.

Говорят: опека объ этомъ есть дъло собственно отцов... 1997, с.627 ]. а отцы не хотятъ или тоже не могутъ. "[Барсуков. Если въ нем не будутъ съять добрыхъ растенiй, въ немъ непремънно выростутъ худосочные...

Народившийся в периферии, в фамилии писаря, И. В 1857 г., попавши в Петербурге, попробовал без подготовки сохранять испытания в АХ и был приобретен. Пятнадцати лет он определился учеником к богомазу, возраст спустя - ретушером к фотографу. Н. Крамской пробирался к искусству с исключительным упрямством.