You know, this whole FCC torpedoing AT&T’s planned T-Mobile merger is nonsense.  As I have written about often, I think the merger’s a mini jobs stimulus plan which can inject jobs into the economy far beyond anything that may happen at the company post-merger.

We sorely need that here in America.  This privately borne proposal is just one such plan, one which would provide some needed fuel for new American jobs.  Up to 96,000 by AT&T’s estimation.

Yet the FCC’s got the company by the proverbial short hairs, firmly believing that its judgment is better than those who are taking the risk and making investments needed to build out new broadband facilities for Americans.  Consequently, as one industry observer dryly noted:

“This is central planning at its most repugnant.”

Yes it is.  And, it’s got some powerful cheerleaders from the media-Marxist crowd jumping up and down with profound excitement.

Leading this pack is the holier-than-thou radicals at Free Press.

Holier-than-thou because, though they claim AT&T’s Washington money has corrupted communications policy, it is they who have raked in millions from murky “progressive” foundations – the latter actively working this past decade to corrupt and “transform” America by laundering – often from hidden / non-transparent sources – approximately $100 million to kneecap telephone, cable and media companies with new rules, regulations and costly proscriptions.

Not surprisingly, Free Press sits atop the list of “media reform” foundation grantees.

(more…)

Reuters ran a story last week that attempted to paint George Soros and his foundation’s donations as an organizing element of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) demonstrations.  As much as this may be red meat to the right, I have to say that the story’s math was thin.

Here’s the equation: Soros’ Open Society Institute gave $3.5 million from 2007-2009 to the Tides Center.  In that same period, Tides gave $26,000 to Adbusters, the group that proclaims to have initiated the Wall Street occupation.

Sure, Soros has been said to be sympathetic to the “cause,” but is he orchestrating the demonstrations?  Probably not.  At least not in a coordinated, marching-order sense.

However, there are some interesting connections.

In the media reform space, which I follow closely, Soros and Tides, among others, have spent over $100 million this past decade funding the efforts of radical groups like Free Press (surprisingly, sitting atop of this pyramid is not George Soros; rather, it’s the Ford Foundation, which has given over $12 million to media reform activists in the last ten years alone).

One name that stands out among the “media reformers” as they’re connected to the OWS movement is Free Press’s Tim Karr.   To be sure, there is a firm connection between Soros and Tides to Karr’s employer.  Since 2003, Free Press has received $1.26 million from Soros’ Open Society Institute; and from 2005-2007, nearly $215,000 from Tides. (more…)

The media reform cabal is at it again.  The same professional Soros-funded astroturfers who brought us Van Jones to demand “media justice” and SaveTheInternet and Net Neutrality have been focused on a new target.  For months now, Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge, Consumers Union, and the New America Foundation have been thwarting the proposed merger of cell phone providers AT&T and T-Mobile, saying the move would raise prices for consumers and cost jobs.  As the deal sits with the FCC, which just this week temporarily halted its review of the proposal, AT&T and T-Mobile have tried to reassure consumers and activists that the merger would lower prices, increase access to service in rural areas and give consumers better choices.  The AFL-CIO, which represents 42,000 AT&T workers through the CWA, agrees with AT&T and T-Mobile.  Ironically, that puts the country’s most powerful labor federation on the opposite side of its progressive media reform allies.

But as these supposed media reformers actively work with community groups and state and federal agencies to oppose corporate interests on behalf of consumers, they fail to divulge their own ties to competitive corporate interests. And now, there are reports that a state commission may also have played a role in helping the competition.

As Amanda Carey has detailed at The Daily Caller, these Net Neutrality advocates have a long history of opposing these very companies, with the support of corporate competitors.

(more…)

The definition of the word corruption, according to Merriam-Webster, is an “impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle.” No, this isn’t a post about WeinerGate, that corruption is being exposed elsewhere…so to speak. This is about two stories of corruption that aren’t getting as much attention as they deserve but have real-world implications for the lives of Americans.

We’ve all heard the saying “The fox guarding the hen house,” right? It essentially means  putting someone with their own agenda in charge of making sure something contrary to their interest doesn’t happen. What’s happening at the Department of Education (DoE) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are similar stories of inappropriate interactions between bureaucrats creating policy and the appearance of partnerships with outsiders with their own agendas. It’s not the fox guarding the hen house, it’s closer to the fox designing the security system for the hen house.

Over at the DoE, they’ve been working with Wall Street short-sellers to push regulations that would all but destroy the for-profit education system. Short-sellers, who stand to make a fortune once that regulation is fully implemented and have zero expertise in education policy, have been intimately involved in the drafting “Gainful-Employment” rules that essentially mean a certain percentage of graduates have to get jobs related to their field of study in order for a for-profit institution’s students to qualify for financial aid.

Forget the fact that in this economy, state-run schools would have difficulty in meeting that criteria. Focus on the clear conflict of interest in having people who stand to personally benefit financially helping create rules to increase the chances of that happening and you begin to see why the Inspector General of the DoE opened an investigation into this.

(more…)

(And we do not mean this august publication.)

John Donne famously said no man is an island.  He didn’t live to see the Media Marxists and their absurd policy positions.

These Leftist alleged media “reformers” incessantly demand massive government insertion into and interference with every free market-media nook and cranny.

Insertion and interference in which almost no one else has any interest.

Save, of course, for the other forces of Big Government – Big Government being always interested in expanding its authoritarian sway.

We have noted this previously.  For instance, the Media Marxists have all along been strident proponents of Network Neutrality – a government takeover of the Internet that was and remains the kid sitting by himself in the high school cafeteria – almost no one else wanted anything to do with it.

Except, again, Big Government.  President Barack Obama’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) joined the Media Marxists at the lonely lunch table – and unilaterally and illegally imposed Net Neutrality.

So radical and foolish is Net Neutrality that – in addition to 302 members of the then Democrat-controlled Congress and a unanimous D.C. Circuit court – a gaggle of normally pro-government groups are opposed to its imposition.

The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC), the Urban League and the Sierra Club, to name but a few.

And then there were the unions.

(more…)

When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rammed through net neutrality regulations last December, Chairman Julius Genachowski may have been hoping Americans would be too busy with their Christmas shopping to notice and that the matter would die as other issues grabbed at Congress’ and the public’s attention in the new year.

Judging by the response of House Republicans to the FCC, however, it appears that Genachowski judged wrong.

On Sunday, Speaker Boehner fired a shot across the FCC’s bow, telling a group of religious broadcasters that the FCC’s net neutrality rules demonstrate that the agency “is creeping further into the free market,” and suggesting that FCC regulation could impact freedom of speech, moving forward.

“The last thing we need, in my view, is the FCC serving as Internet traffic controller, and potentially running roughshod over local broadcasters who have been serving their communities with free content for decades,” Boehner said in comments cited by the Washington Times.

The Speaker’s view seems to be shared by Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Communications and Technology Subcommittee, led by Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.).  That panel is set to vote tomorrow on a “resolution of disapproval” of the FCC’s regulations.

(more…)

Seems in this weekend’s House deficit-cutting exercise, public media got a haircut – federal subsidies for PBS will end if the House budget holds sway.  Not surprisingly, PBS (and all its supporters in the media, blogosphere, twittersphere and on Capitol Hill), were freaking out.

As one series of highly organized “grassroots” tweets trilled:

RT @jcstearns: New House budget will NOT fund #pubmedia, #netneutrality, #epa but WILL fund gov sponsorship of Nascar http://nyti.ms/eOEgNk via @aschweig

The DoD’s NASCAR recruiting and marketing campaigns – at about $15 million in all – survives, but PBS’ $430 million gets axed.  “Say, what?!!!”  That just isn’t right, Free Press’ Josh Stearns seemingly tweet-claims.

Perhaps Josh is on to something – that is, what’s right.  Putting on my class warfare hat for a moment, how is it right that the rich have had this subsidy for so long?

Many American’s have long-known PBS’ upper-crust focus.  Inside the beltway, it’s kind of a perennial joke (or thorn in one’s side, depending on your point of view).  The $430 million in annual federal funding – representing about 15% of PBS’ budget (they get most of their support from private sources) – is just one of those subsidies that the media and intellectuals endlessly admonish the rest of us to stop worrying about.  At $1.50 per American, per year, it’s a steal.  And besides, it helps kids, the disadvantaged, minorities, etc.

Yet, when you look at who’s actually watching PBS, and the shows they air, another picture emerges.  According to this document, 73% of the audience watching any given PBS show makes household income of $75,000 or more (with 37% of the audience actually making more than $125,000).  In comparison, Census Bureau statistics show median household income in America is just shy of $50,000.

Of course, if you’re wanting for a diversity of PBS / NPR programming on states’ rights, or the right to bear arms, or the constitutional conflict to our liberties presented by the new healthcare law – you’d be hard-pressed to find much of that there.  I guess that’s what Fox is for.

(more…)

Though Free Press outwardly expressed condemnation at the approval of the Comcast-NBC Merger earlier this month, they really got a lot of what they bargained for.  After their extensive lobbying blitz – with approximately 35 different FCC communiqués, including over 20 individual meetings with FCC Commissioners and their staff – it’s clear they helped shape many of the agreement’s “voluntary” commitments.

Merger decrees represent a feeding trough of sorts for the public interest group (PIG) community.  Appendix G of the Order reveals the length at which these PIGs sup, stretching nearly 60 pages of the 279 –page Order.

Appendix G wasn’t just slopped together, though.  PIGs are an organized lot.  Witness one such effort – a Free Press-attended, “funding community” event last summer, with participants there brainstorming on what they could demand from Comcast in order for the merger to go through.

Taken from published notes at that meeting, the participants wondered aloud:

…NBC/Universal is going to merge with Comcast. Can we require rules around this merger? When Comcast and Universal come together, it will diminish the incentives for the owner of that infrastructure to do local news. *What should we be asking for? A $300 million fund to incentivize public media? Trade groups to protect jobs in journalism?* We have to fight now and not look back and wonder what we should have done.

Boy, PIGs get fat, but hogs become bacon.  Yet that doesn’t stop these gluttons.  I love also the hubris of non-government officials saying, “Can we require rules around this merger…” Er, “We require”?  It shows just how corruptible and voluntary-as-a-mugging the whole process is.  Simply amazing stuff, more akin to Egyptian thuggery than American Democracy.

(more…)

It looks like the Soros machine isn’t done with Net Neutrality, even after its December coup at the FCC.

Our Soros-supported socialist friends at Free Press just announced that David Saldana will be its new communications director.  If that name doesn’t ring a bell, you evidently haven’t been following Mr. Soros’ funding priorities.

Before joining Free Press, he was with the Soros’ front group, the National Security and Human Rights Campaign.  Think calling it a front group is too strong?  Then just go to its website, which is conveniently located at Soros.org.  The group’s mission is to promote “progressive national security policies,” a term as embedded in contradiction as “French steadfastness.”

Prior to that, Saldana was the Deputy Editorial Director at Media Matters for America, the beneficiary of a seven-figure donation from Mr. Soros’ Open Society Initiative.

Chances are, this means that even last December’s FCC power grab over the web hasn’t gone far enough to satisfy Mr. Soros.  This isn’t surprising.  We can see his fingers in the most obvious places, like the FCC’s Net Neutrality Order, all the way down to the least lit reaches – as in the recent Comcast Merger Order and one of the company’s “voluntary” commitments to boost local journalism via the “Voice of Sand Diego Model,” a socially progressive news organization, which gets funding in part from, you guessed it, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations).

(more…)

It’s an eerie echo of last year’s health care debate, but without nearly as much public attention.  Another Christmas Eve, another sixth of the economy taken over by Washington.

This time it’s so-called “network neutrality” regulation.  President Obama’s Federal Communications Commission is obsessed with regulating the Internet.  They apparently won’t be stopped by common sense, courts of law, public opinion, or a resounding electoral defeat for big government policies.  They made it official last night at midnight when they announced the agenda for their December 21 meeting: the FCC is going to regulate the Internet.

Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term “open Internet”) is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s press secretary.

McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca:

You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.

The FCC’s new rules, likely to be approved on a final 3-2, party-line vote on December 21, take McChesney’s first step.

Network neutrality sounds simple – force phone and cable companies to treat every bit of information the same way – but modern networks are incredibly complex, with millions of lines of code in every router, and constantly evolving.

(more…)

The FCC is trying to walk a careful line on net neutrality, according to Democratic and Republican sources in Congress and the FCC.

Earlier this year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski proposed regulations giving his agency wide authority over broadband services, including the right to set limits on new services and innovation.

Lately, however, Genachowski seems on a more cautious approach, distancing himself from the more fanatical regulations. Word coming from the FCC is that Genachowski decided that he couldn’t satisfy the net neutrality fanatics and still have good policy. So if he couldn’t get both, he decided, he should focus on good policy.

Naturally, the Professional Left is outraged but at this point, most policymakers recognize that as a political pressure game and they are increasingly disregarding it. In fact, Genachowski is even getting a great deal of credit – especially within Congress – for having the courage to withstand the political pressure from Free Press and Moveon.org.

(more…)

Even Obama voters think Net Neutrality is a solution looking for a problem

Free Press, Public Knowledge and the rest of the ever-dwindling Media Marxist “Save the Internet” contingent incessantly assert that they are pushing their government regulatory Web agenda in the “public interest” – to protect consumers from the Big, Bad Telecom companies.

Well it turns out – yet again – that the public isn’t interested in what Free Press & Co. are offering – perhaps because they rightly realize that the “reformers” are looking to burn down the Internet in order to “save” it.

There is a new poll out that shows an overwhelming majority of the consumers Free Press and Co. are claiming to be helping – don’t want their help.  75% of Americans like the Internet just the way it is – no “saving” necessary.  And 57% think the federal government should not regulate the Internet at all.

And of the 31% who think the government should regulate the Internet, more than two-thirds of them said that the regulation should be focused on privacy, online safety and protecting.

(more…)

The Germans have a word called Schadenfreude, which roughly translates into taking pleasure in the misfortune of others.  It’s the feeling most of us had when we read about Paris Hilton’s latest arrest.

Usually you feel a little guilty, but sometimes life brings an example that’s so crazy it becomes almost funny.  In other words, you get Free Press.  This is the Professional Left group founded by the avowed socialist Robert McChesney around the time he called the United States “by any honest account, the leading terrorist institution in the world today.”

This week, Free Press became so hysterical as to be almost unhinged, acting like Jack Nicholson at the end of The Shining.  The organization launched a full-throated “shock and awe” broadside to get the FCC to begin regulating “neutrality” over the Internet.   Along with fellow liberal travelers at Public Knowledge, Free Press posted scathing attacks suggesting that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski had become a tool of corporate interests and a “toothless bureaucrat.”

As enjoyable as it is to watch these guys work themselves into a frenzy on Net neutrality, it’s even more fun to admire the irony: Free Press is pushing exactly the kind of Executive Branch power-grab that liberals scorned loudly during the Bush years!

(more…)

It’s last call at Club Network Neutrality.  The crowd supporting this government Internet land grab is rapidly thinning.  The latest two to head for the exits each deal a huge blow to the media “reform” cause – for different reasons.

The first is Big Search mogul Google.  By its sheer size, power and sphere of influence it is a major player in the Net Neutrality (NN) debate – and they have been pro-NN.  But Google’s recent deal with Verizon – which deviates slightly from puritanical NN tenets – was a bridge too far for the pro-NN crowd.

So Google became the latest to receive the sad, tired “You Are Evil” treatment the Left reflexively delivers against their political opponents.  Google probably wasn’t all the way out the door on their own – but they may be now, shoved through by the subtle, soft-spoken pro-NN forces.

If so, we say welcome to the Great Outside – let’s do lunch.

The second was the conservative group Gun Owners of America (GoA).  Though not the monster entity Google is, their departure is important because it weakens substantially the pro-NN case that the partisan push to over-regulate the Internet isn’t partisan.

(more…)

And as with all Leftist things, the more they know the less they like

On August 11, more than 150 organizations (including 35 TEA Party groups), state legislators and bloggers signed onto a pair of letters urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to give up on their unilateral Internet power grab – the reclassification of the Web under the oppressive 1930s land line telephone regulatory regime, and the implementation of Network Neutrality.

(Full disclosure: As StopNetRegulation.org’s Editor in Chief, I signed on.  As did the President and Vice President of Legal Affairs of the Center for Individual Freedom, the organization that publishes StopNetRegulation.org.)

We became part of a great and growing bipartisan chorus all singing the same song – that the FCC is dramatically overreaching in trying to assert this sweeping new authority.  More than 284 members of the United States Congress – from both Parties – have also signed letters stating the same.

Seventeen minority groups did so as well.  And the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court – led by a Democrat-appointee judge – ruled 3-0 that the FCC isn’t empowered to do what it’s trying to do.

The FCC only has the authority to do what Congress and the President have given it via legislation.  And they have not sanctioned the FCC to regulate the Internet.  The Right understands this.  The Left does not – or chooses to willfully ignore it.

(more…)

A top network neutrality advocacy group is weathering a flap over its sketchy lobbying disclosures after it was reported last week the group had taken numerous unreported meetings with senior aides at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

Free Press, among the fiercest and better funded Beltway groups lobbying for the adoption of net neutrality rules, has taken great pains to criticize industry groups for holding off-the-record meetings with FCC officials. But the group’s staff had lobbied FCC officials on more than two dozen undocumented occasions since January 2009. Additionally, discrepancies were discovered between the group’s filings relating to lobbying.

Federal legislation mandates the disclosure of lobbying efforts directed at federal employees with regard to the formulation of federal rules and laws. According to recently-obtained ex-parte data, serious discrepancies were discovered between filings with the Internal Revenue Service–which are to disclose generic, grassroots lobbying expenses–and those figures reported under the Lobbying Disclosure Act–which is to monitor federal-specific lobbying expenses.

Between the years 2005 and 2010, Free Press LDA disclosures showed the group had spent little more than $150,000 on direct lobbying of legislators and federal employees. But tax filings with the IRS–only presently available up to the year 2008–revealed the organization had spent nearly $1 million on lobbying in little more than half that time.

(more…)

In step with federal government intrusion into the health care system, the auto industry, and the financial industry, the FCC and the Obama Administration has had its eye on asserting control over the Internet.

On Thursday, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) closed its official public comment period “In the Matter of Framework for Broadband Internet Service.”  In English?  Despite broad opposition, three of the five unelected members of the FCC are one step away from officially regulating the Internet under laws originally intended for monopoly telephone carriers in the 1930s.

So how can the FCC make this dramatic change in the way the government treats the Internet?  Well, according to the Democrats on the Commission and far left advocacy organizations like Free Press, it’s a surprisingly simple process – one that does not include the approval of Congress approval or any elected officials.

Just since June 17, the FCC: opened a Notice of Inquiry to seek the “best legal framework for broadband Internet access” on a partisan 3-2 vote; accepted comments on these proposed regulations; and then allowed for reply comments so that policy, advocacy, and industry leaders would have a chance to refute whatever points were made during the initial comment period (to whomever might be interested in a seemingly obscure telecommunications issue, in the middle of August!).

And that’s it, folks!

(more…)

On Monday, Google and Verizon—two of the nation’s biggest companies operating in the tech space—announced a compromise joint proposal on Internet regulation that has tech policy observers buzzing.

The proposal, discussed during a conference call featuring Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, represents a substantial softening of Google’s position on controversial net neutrality proposals, say several tech policy observers.

Notably, while enshrining non-discrimination rules with regard to what is often referred to as “traditional Internet broadband service,” the proposal also allows broadband providers to offer what are known as “differentiated services,” such as Verizon’s FiOS service, which need not be neutral.  This is being interpreted in some quarters as a major shift on Google’s part.

The company took fire yesterday from Free Press, a pro-net neutrality group that some tech policy experts have speculated for years took money from Google to finance its advocacy efforts, which helped promote an approach that observers say could, if adopted and enforced, have benefited the corporation substantially.  In a statement, Free Press adviser Joel Kelsey remarked that “If codified, this arrangement will lead to toll booths on the information superhighway.”

(more…)

Amazon.com, the online retailing powerhouse, last week announced a shift in stance on net neutrality that has tech policy observers in the nation’s capital buzzing.

The company, a long-time backer of the controversial policy and member of the pro-net neutrality Open Internet Coalition, signaled in an op-ed by its Vice President for Global Public Policy, Paul Misener, openness to a compromise measure, which would allow what are known as “managed services” to be offered by Internet Service (ISPs) subject to certain conditions.

Specifically, Misener argues that “Internet content providers (and consumers) should be able to purchase ‘quality of service’ or ‘managed services’ from network operators on the same basis–equal availability and no harm to other content.”

Previously, net neutrality proponents had been unwilling to sanction the marketing of such services, irrespective of equal availability or non-prejudicial impact—a position still held by many on the “pro” side of the debate.

The shift was therefore dubbed a “major departure” by one expert tracking the net neutrality debate with whom Capitol Confidential spoke, and one that could have significant ramifications for the way the net neutrality battle plays out moving forward.

(more…)

Interesting article in the New York Times today about how the radical media activist group Free Press is now working with an organization called The Harmony Institute toward the goal of “Adding Punch to Influence Public Opinion.” The way they want to “add punch” is through entertainment propaganda. The Times article notes that Harmony’s mission is “aimed at getting filmmakers and others to use the insights and techniques of behavioral psychology in delivering social and political messages through their work.” And now they want to use such “behavioral psychology” and “political messaging” (read: propaganda) techniques in pursuit of Net neutrality regulation.

More on that agenda in a second. First, I just have to note the irony of Harmony’s founder John S. Johnson citing “The Day After Tomorrow” as a model for the sort of thing he wants to accomplish. According to the Times interview with him, he says the movie’s “global warming message [and] rip-roaring story, appeared to alter attitudes among young and undereducated audiences who would never see a preachy documentary.” I love this because “The Day After Tomorrow” was such a shameless piece of globe warming doomsday propaganda that it must have even made the people at Greenpeace blush in embarrassment. After all, here is a movie that claims global warming will result in an instantaneous global freeze (how’s that work again?) and leave kids scurrying for the safety of New York City libraries until a quick thaw comes a couple of weeks later. (Seriously, have you seen that movie? That’s the plot!) So apparently we can expect some pretty sensational, fear-mongering info-tainment from Harmony and Free Press.

(more…)