• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Компании1900
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы135
      • Показать ещё
      Разное560
      • Показать ещё
      Люди191
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации30
      • Показать ещё
      Издания38
      • Показать ещё
      Формат6
      Показатели38
      • Показать ещё
24 мая, 01:58

FCC: Colbert won't face action over Trump-Putin joke

"Late Show" host Stephen Colbert will not face action from regulators despite complaints over a controversial Trump-Putin joke he made during monologue earlier this month, the FCC announced Tuesday. A spokesman for the Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday in a statement that after a review of the matter, the agency had "concluded that there was nothing actionable under the FCC's rules." Colbert drew scorn from across the political spectrum following a May 1 show during which he joked that President Donald Trump's relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin was "beneath the dignity of American broadcasting,” adding that “the only thing [Trump’s] mouth is good for is being Vladimir Putin’s [expletive] holster.”The comments were widely-panned online, with many on social media resurrecting the #FireColbert campaign that plagued a portion of his tenure as a host on Comedy Central. As of last Friday, the FCC had received over 5,700 complaints of indecency, hate speech and homophobia over Colbert's quip. Colbert, who has surge in late-night TV ratings in the wake of Trump's election, in part due to his scorching critiques of the president, was met with pushback from conservatives and liberals alike. “There is nothing wrong with two men who love each other,” read one FCC complaint, from a trans man who identifies as homosexual, provided to POLITICO in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. “I don't like Trump but I also don't like anti-homosexual comments being aired for millions of people to see. I have to say, shame on you for allowing this.”Others urged the federal government to uphold the integrity of the presidency, no matter the party of the president. “I know all you Commie shills hate this president but it is your job to keep these Leftists from dragging this nation further into the gutter,” read one complaint.Two days following his controversial remarks, Colbert tempered his comments, saying that although he did not regret his criticism of the president, he regretted the language he'd used to express is. "While I would do it again, I would change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be," Colbert said on the May 3 edition of the "Late Show." He added: "I just want to say for the record, life is short, and anyone who expresses their love for another person, in their own way, is to me, an American hero."

Выбор редакции
24 мая, 00:14

FCC won't take action against Colbert over Trump joke

The Federal Communications Commission said Tuesday that it will not take any action over a joke made by Stephen Colbert about President Donald Trump.

Выбор редакции
23 мая, 19:13

Замечен загадочный смартфон Samsung на платформе Snapdragon 821

Сертификацию в Федеральной комиссии связи США (FCC) и организации Wi-Fi Alliance, по сообщениям сетевых источников, прошёл загадочный смартфон Samsung, фигурирующий под обозначением SM-G9298. Южнокорейский гигант, как полагают наблюдатели, готовит новый аппарат в раскладывающемся корпусе. Судя по представленному изображению, на внешней стороне крышки расположится большой сенсорный дисплей.

22 мая, 22:50

More Than 5,000 People Complained To The FCC About Colbert's 'Homophobic' Trump Joke

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Earlier this month, Stephen Colbert referred to President Donald Trump as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “cock holster” in a fiery, if tongue-in-cheek, rant that instantly sparked controversy.   The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced May 19 that it had received over 5,700 complaints from viewers about the May 1 episode of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” with most condemning the host’s “cock holster” joke, Politico reports.  The nature of the individual complaints varied widely. Still, many pinpointed what they saw as the homophobia underlying Colbert’s words. “By using accusations of being gay as an insult,” one Illinois viewer wrote, “it implied that there is something wrong with being gay.” A New York felt similarly, telling the FCC, “I really thought we left this kind of bigotry in the wastebin of history. Instead I have to endure it during dinner with me and my husband’s son.” Viewers from both sides of the political spectrum were equally angered by the Colbert rant, even if their complaints differed in their specifics. “I know all you Commie shills hate this president,” one complaint from Florida read, “but it is your job to keep these Leftists from dragging this nation further into the gutter.”  There’s no word yet on what impact the volume of complaints will have. On May 5, FCC chairman Ajit Pai said his agency had launched an investigation into Colbert’s Trump joke and would “apply the law fairly and fully.”  “I have had a chance to see the clip now and so, as we get complaints, and we’ve gotten a number of them, we are going to take the facts that we find,” Pai said on The Rich Zeoli Show on Talk Radio 1210 WPHT, “and we are going to apply the law as it’s been set out by the Supreme Court and other courts and we’ll take the appropriate action.” If the commission determines that Colbert violated FCC regulations, Pai added, he’d likely face a fine. Two days after the “cock holster” remark aired, Colbert himself addressed the controversy. On the May 3 installment of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” he said he didn’t regret making the comments but would “change a few words that were cruder than they needed to be” if he could.  He also shrugged off the claims of homophobia. “I just want to say for the record, life is short,” he said, “and anyone who expresses their love for another person, in their own way, is to me, an American hero.”  The public backlash, meanwhile, seems to have had little impact on Colbert’s ratings. Viewership of “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” has been boffo in recent weeks, CNN reports. The week following the controversy turned out to be a real win for the show, which beat its closest rival, “The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon,” by its highest margin (410,000 viewers) since September 2015.  For the latest in LGBTQ news, check out the Queer Voices newsletter.  -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
22 мая, 21:28

Net Neutrality Proponents Gear Up For New Fight Against Ajit Pai

Ajit Pai, Chairman of the FCC, is in for a battle as he diligently tries to unravel net neutrality and all of the progress made under the previous administration.

22 мая, 19:17

Stephen Colbert Says Fox News Is Declining Because The News 'Depresses' Trump Voters

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Ratings are dropping for Fox News, America’s usual No. 1 cable news broadcaster. After a series of sexual harassment scandals that led to the ouster of star anchor Bill O’Reilly and founder Roger Ailes, who recently died, the network is now being edged out of rankings by MSNBC and CNN.  But “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert has a theory on the network’s decline that has nothing to do with any of that. He believes the biggest stories in the news these days are so hard on supporters of President Donald Trump that they’d rather tune out.  “I think, more than [MSNBC] rising, Fox is going down because the people who voted for him don’t want to hear it,” Colbert told an audience at New York’s Vulture Festival on Saturday, where he discussed political TV with “Veep” executive producer Frank Rich.  “But they’re not going to hear it on Fox,” Rich said, pointing out how the network underemphasizes the importance of stories on Congress’ Russia probes and others that make Trump look bad, so supporters wouldn’t come into contact with such headlines there, anyway. “They’ll hear a little bit,” Colbert countered. “I think it depresses Trump voters to hear that stuff, so they’d rather just not hear it, because they can’t have been wrong.” “So what do you think they’re watching instead?” Rich asked. “The Late Show,” Colbert joked. “All are welcome.” Of course, the late-night show recently came under fire for the strength of its host’s condemnation for Trump, which involved an insult that prompted an FCC investigation. Colbert’s show has benefited in the late-night ratings war from his willingness to dive into the political issues of the day ― a task that has his staff scrambling at the last minute these days as investigative reporting by The New York Times, The Washington Post and other outlets breaks at the end of the workday. Colbert’s show is filmed from about 5:30 p.m. ET, kicking off with the host’s news-saturated monologue. But, as he pointed out, the jokes only work if the audience is aware of the biggest headlines. (The writers’ room features a screen partially devoted to Trump’s Twitter feed, just to make sure the staff doesn’t miss anything.) More than once in the past two weeks, Colbert said, he had to personally inform the audience of major breaking news so they’d get the laughs.  “Comey got fired in the middle of my monologue!” the host said, recalling the May 9 bombshell news that the president had abruptly terminated the FBI director leading an investigation into his campaign’s ties with Russia. In that case, the show’s writers were given 10 minutes to come up with at least three jokes about the news while Colbert looped in the audience. “That feels sustainable on our end,” the host said of the rapid-fire news cycle as damning leaks out of the White House have accelerated in recent weeks. “It doesn’t feel sustainable as a society.” To Colbert, the state of American politics is more akin to political comedy, featuring a White House inundated by “ego,” “incompetence” and “panic.” “That’s the scariest thing,” he said, making a fitting comparison given his onstage companion. “It’s not that I disagree with him. It’s that I don’t know what the fuck he thinks. And it’s all so petty and venal, and there’s nothing grand about it. It’s not Shakespearean ― no, it’s ‘Veep.’” -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

21 мая, 14:23

Семейный капитал объявляет запуск "FC-coin"

С сегодняшнего дня каждый может принять участие в строительстве российской экономики и получить токены с огромным потенциалом роста.FCC - криптовалюта "Семейного капитала" - выпускается в качестве подтверждения денежных средств, направленных на реализованные проекты в реальном секторе экономики: сельском хозяйстве, переработке, производстве и реализации продуктов питания. Нашими силами современный облик российского сельского хозяйства изменится всего за несколько лет. Импортозависимость и высокие цены на еду навсегда уйдут в прошлое.Мы перешли на новую систему отсчета: - Возвращаются магазины "Семейного капитала" под свежим названием "Сегодня" - Начинается строительство первого универсального пищевого комбината в Санкт-Петербурге (первого из десятков уже внесенных в план) - Подтягивается "тяжелая артиллерия" - наши уже действующие фермы и молокозаводы - К участию в проекте "Комплекс вкуса" подключаются зарубежные инвесторы.Нас многократно пытались остановить те, кому невыгоден рост производительности российского сельского хозяйства, но это невозможно. За нами наши пайщики и тысячи неравнодушных людей в России, в Китае, в Израиле, в Новой Зеландии, во всем мире. Сегодня токен "Семейного капитала" соответствует стартовому номиналу в 75 рублей, уже через месяц номинал будет увеличен до 100 рублей. А дальше токен может расти до значительных величин. Это инвестиции в будущее.Подробнее о проекте "Комплекс вкуса", о том, как принять в нем участие, и о доступной каждому криптовалюте FCC (Семейный Капитал коин) читайте здесь.(http://sk-npo.ru/start)

Выбор редакции
20 мая, 10:26

Senators Demand Answers After Reporter Is 'Manhandled' At FCC Hearing

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Senators have complained to the Federal Communications Commission after a journalist said security guards pushed him to a wall while he was covering an FCC hearing on ending net neutrality. Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) complained in a letter to the FCC Friday that the incident appears to be part of a “pattern of hostility toward the press characteristic of this administration, which underscores our serious concern.” CQ Roll Call reporter John Donnelly was covering the hearing, brought about as part of the Trump administration’s push to end net neutrality and allow service providers to restrict access to content. Donnelly was attempting to question FCC commissioner Michael O’Reilly after a press conference on Thursday when two guards suddenly “pinned” the journalist to the wall until the commissioner had left, according to a statement from the National Press Club.  One of the guards then “proceeded to force Donnelly to leave the building entirely under implied threat of force,” the press club statement said. Donnelly said he “could not have been less threatening or more polite.” “There is no justification for using force in such a situation,” he added. My main concern is ensuring no other reporter is mistreated at @FCC or anywhere else for doing his/her job. 2— John M. Donnelly (@johnmdonnelly) May 19, 2017 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) joined the Democratic senators Friday in demanding the FCC explain what happened.  “The Federal Communications Commission needs to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Grassley said in a statement. “It’s standard operating procedure for reporters to ask questions of public officials after meetings and news conferences. It happens all day, every day. There’s no good reason to put hands on a reporter who’s doing his or her job.” Press club president Barbara Cochran said that the “FCC and other government buildings are paid for by U.S. tax dollars, and officials who work there are accountable to the public through its representatives in the media.” The FCC has apologized to Donnelly, it said in a statement to The Hill. “We apologized to Mr. Donnelly more than once, and let him know that the FCC was on heightened alert based on several threats,” it added. At the meeting where Donnelly reported being roughed up, the FCC took the initial steps toward rolling back a key provision of the net neutrality rules. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related coverage + articlesList=590f7fefe4b046ea176aec9a,590258a1e4b0bb2d086c3cca,5900f603e4b0af6d718b0559 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

20 мая, 10:26

Senators Demand Answers After Reporter Is 'Manhandled' At FCC Hearing

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); Senators have complained to the Federal Communications Commission after a journalist said security guards pushed him to a wall while he was covering an FCC hearing on ending net neutrality. Sens. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) complained in a letter to the FCC Friday that the incident appears to be part of a “pattern of hostility toward the press characteristic of this administration, which underscores our serious concern.” CQ Roll Call reporter John Donnelly was covering the hearing, brought about as part of the Trump administration’s push to end net neutrality and allow service providers to restrict access to content. Donnelly was attempting to question FCC commissioner Michael O’Reilly after a press conference on Thursday when two guards suddenly “pinned” the journalist to the wall until the commissioner had left, according to a statement from the National Press Club.  One of the guards then “proceeded to force Donnelly to leave the building entirely under implied threat of force,” the press club statement said. Donnelly said he “could not have been less threatening or more polite.” “There is no justification for using force in such a situation,” he added. My main concern is ensuring no other reporter is mistreated at @FCC or anywhere else for doing his/her job. 2— John M. Donnelly (@johnmdonnelly) May 19, 2017 Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) joined the Democratic senators Friday in demanding the FCC explain what happened.  “The Federal Communications Commission needs to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Grassley said in a statement. “It’s standard operating procedure for reporters to ask questions of public officials after meetings and news conferences. It happens all day, every day. There’s no good reason to put hands on a reporter who’s doing his or her job.” Press club president Barbara Cochran said that the “FCC and other government buildings are paid for by U.S. tax dollars, and officials who work there are accountable to the public through its representatives in the media.” The FCC has apologized to Donnelly, it said in a statement to The Hill. “We apologized to Mr. Donnelly more than once, and let him know that the FCC was on heightened alert based on several threats,” it added. At the meeting where Donnelly reported being roughed up, the FCC took the initial steps toward rolling back a key provision of the net neutrality rules. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related coverage + articlesList=590f7fefe4b046ea176aec9a,590258a1e4b0bb2d086c3cca,5900f603e4b0af6d718b0559 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
19 мая, 22:13

FCC security manhandles a Washington reporter trying to ask a question

Another journalist has been manhandled by security while trying to ask a public official questions. Now the National Press Club is worried about a trend, and has called on reporters to speak up if they're mistreated.

Выбор редакции
19 мая, 21:00

Colbert joke prompts thousands of FCC complaints from all political stripes

Disgruntled viewers of Stephen Colbert’s late-night show on CBS complained to the FCC that a sexually explicit joke about President Donald Trump and his relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin is “beneath the dignity of American broadcasting,” and urged the agency to sanction the network.A sample of the more than 5,700 complaints that flooded the agency since Colbert’s joke on the May 1 episode of “The Late Show” included concerns about indecency, hate speech and homophobia from across the political spectrum. Colbert used a crude term to refer to a metaphorical sexual relationship between the U.S. and Russian presidents in a monologue on Trump’s first 100 days in office. The FCC, in response to a POLITICO Freedom of Information Act request, released samples of the complaints, with the names of the people who submitted them redacted but their geographic locations intact. The agency provided the first 100 complaints received between May 2 and May 17.Parents complained about answering questions from their kids, while one viewer thanked God “my children, elderly parents, and other loved ones did not see the dispicable (sic) display of vitriol that spewed from his hateful mouth!” Some viewers argued that Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama wouldn’t be the butt of a similar joke, and complained that Trump was unfairly targeted by the media. “I know all you Commie shills hate this president but it is your job to keep these Leftists from dragging this nation further into the gutter,” one complaint from St. Petersburg, Fla. said.Several raised qualms about what they viewed as the homophobic nature of the joke: “By using accusations of being gay as an insult, it implied that there is something wrong with being gay,” an Urbana, Ill. viewer wrote. “There is nothing wrong with two men who love each other,” one complaint, from a trans man who identifies as homosexual, said. “I don't like Trump but I also don't like anti-homosexual comments being aired for millions of people to see. I have to say, shame on you for allowing this.”“I really thought we left this kind of bigotry in the wastebin of history,” a New York City viewer said. “Instead I have to endure it during dinner with me and my husband's son.”Many of the complaints called for fines against Colbert and CBS, but lawyers familiar with the FCC’s indecency and obscenity rules say that’s not going to happen. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has said the agency is reviewing the complaints. Such a review is standard protocol for the FCC, and doesn’t imply the complaints have merit. Pai declined to give an update on the review when asked Thursday at a press conference following a commission meeting.The number of complaints about Colbert's joke is dwarfed by the more than half a million the agency received over Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl on CBS.The FCC’s indecency rules apply to broadcasts between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., and even then, they prohibit material that “depicts or describes sexual or excretory organs or activities in terms patently offensive,” as measured by the community standards. Andrew Schwartzman, an attorney with Georgetown University’s Institute for Public Representation, pointed out that what Colbert said was bleeped out, and even if it wasn’t, it would probably pass the FCC’s indecency test.But that doesn’t matter because "The Late Show" airs at 11:30 p.m., in what’s known as the safe harbor, where the rules are looser because children are presumed to be asleep. The FCC would have to prove the joke was obscene, and as broadcast attorney David Oxenford wrote in a blog post on the subject, “for a program to be obscene, it needs to be really bad.”“A television program like that in question here is never going to be found obscene — the words describing the specific sexual act itself was bleeped out of the broadcast, the description was not designed to appeal to prurient interests (sexual interests — it was not delivered in such an explicit way as to appeal solely to sexual interest), and it did have social significance — it was delivered in a politically motivated statement,” Oxenford wrote. “Under these circumstances, the extremely rigorous obscenity test simply would not be met.”Schwartzman was even more blunt, “There is zero chance the FCC would even dream of bringing a obscenity case against this. ... There is less than zero chance it could succeed.”

Выбор редакции
19 мая, 20:14

Here's how Trump's FCC affects you

Read full story for latest details.

19 мая, 19:02

FCC apologizes for its treatment of a reporter

National Press Club says a CQ Roll Call correspondent was 'manhandled' by security guards.

19 мая, 18:36

Op-Ed: Here’s who loses big time if Sprint and T-Mobile are allowed to merge

These former FCC and DOJ officials say the US should block the Sprint and T-Mobile merger. Here's why.

19 мая, 18:28

As Global Policy Moves To Expand Digital Rights, U.S Faces Crucial Fight Over Equal Access To The Internet

By: Karin Deutsch Karlekar and Christopher Hamlin In 2013, inventor of the internet Tim Berners Lee reflected, “When you make something universal … it can be used for good things or nasty things … we just have to make sure it's not undercut by any large companies or governments trying to use it and get total control.” In what seemed like a momentary delay of his prediction—and a win for internet freedom advocates—in late April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the telecommunications industry’s request for an appeal of a 2016 decision that upheld the net neutrality regulatory framework. In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) had reclassified the internet as a utility much like regular phone service (where, for instance, the phone company can’t block a call because they don’t like the caller). This allowed for stronger enforcement of existing net neutrality rules that prevent internet service providers (ISPs) such as Comcast, Verizon, and AT&T from arbitrarily price-gouging or discriminating against legal content, users, or platforms by slowing or preventing access to them. The landmark ruling is now under threat as the FCC—under its newly appointed chair, former Verizon lawyer Ajit Pai—took an important vote on May 18 to weaken federal oversight of ISPs by no longer applying the Title II “common carrier” classification of the Communications Act to ISPs. This proposed fast-track roll-back of the 2015 protections represents the latest move by the new administration to strip consumer internet access and privacy protections adopted in the Obama years, which included preventing ISPs from selling your browsing history without permission and expanding broadband subsidies for the poor. Pai’s adamant predisposition against a more enforceable framework for net neutrality is concerning, and he may have violated a legal statute by taking an FCC policy position before allowing a public comment period. Despite the traditional U.S. role as an advocate for individual freedoms around the world, the FCC’s reversal on this issue is also at odds with modern global attitudes and governance on the right to unrestricted, affordable digital access. A 2014 CIGI-Ipsos survey of 23,376 internet users from 24 countries found that 83 percent of them believe that affordable access to the internet should be a basic human right. In 2016, this evolving consensus was enshrined by the United Nations Human Rights Council as a non-binding resolution, which denounced “measures to intentionally prevent or disrupt access to or dissemination of information online” as a human rights violation, given that “the same rights people have offline must also be protected online.” This includes the right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Governments across the developing and developed world have already begun to codify this concept domestically or to invest in projects that operationalize it. Germany, Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, and Spain have all had some form of legal right to broadband access for years. That says nothing of the multitude of nations with laws to protect net neutrality, including the European Union. Most recently, in March, the Indian state of Kerala declared that access to the internet is a basic human right, promising to provide free access to all its citizens. This promise is increasingly easier to make as privately funded projects such as Google’s Project Loon partner with governments to provide affordable, universal internet access to its citizens through the use of high altitude balloons. At the same time, Facebook’s Free Basics application has brought free internet to 25 million people across the world. However, last February, India’s telecom regulator banned the free Facebook application over concerns that it undermined net neutrality by favoring certain services over others. Along this vein, it is interesting to consider that China consistently outpaces democratic India in providing its citizens internet access, yet it also consistently ranks as one of the most oppressive on internet freedom indexes. This begs the questions: Can internet access truly be considered a fundamental right—affording the respective essential benefits to be labeled as such—if it means sacrificing uncensored access to all legal content? And what constitutes a healthy regulatory relationship between the governments and ISPs that determine that balance? Chairman Pai contends, alongside ISP giants, that regulating the telecommunications industry like a utility makes it less attractive to investment, resulting in telecom cutbacks on the capital expenditure that bridges the digital divide by allowing them to build out infrastructure to low income and rural neighborhoods. Addressing this reasoning, industry leaders of the Internet Association, including Facebook, Google, and Amazon, have instead underscored net neutrality’s importance to the competition and innovation of their industry. They have also pointed to evidence that shows many ISPs have actually expanded their investment in network infrastructure build-out and innovative technologies like fiber optics, while those that decreased investment had been undergoing major restructuring deals. Perhaps it should also come as no surprise then that last month more than 800 tech start-ups made the case to Chairman Pai that gutting the legal framework preventing service discrimination impedes not only consumer choice, but also their ability to “start a business, immediately reach a worldwide customer base, and disrupt an entire industry” through the unfettered marketplace of ideas. This echoes arguments of free expression advocates, including PEN America, who believe Americans stand to lose essential capabilities for free expression and critical information sharing. Having taken part in the large-scale 2014 advocacy campaigns that persuaded the FCC to reclassify net neutrality protections in the first place, PEN America is concerned that telecom giants may once again receive the discretionary legal power to scrutinize information in their networks and discriminate against the delivery of certain content or its creators. Equally concerning is the potential creation of “pay-to-play” slow and fast lanes, in which only those willing to pay a premium to have their content reach its audience will enjoy that unrestricted right. The right to know, to free expression, and to association are core freedoms that are put in jeopardy through the creation of this power dynamic. It has the potential to establish a system of privatized censorship that restricts the flow of free thought necessary to the work of the writers and readers that PEN represents. Over the past half decade, the internet has become such an internationally recognized foundation for expression, as well as political and commercial interaction, that it has broached the realm of essential “public commodities” such as water, electricity, or telephone service. Allowing private industry to selectively inhibit citizens’ ability to use that commodity is detrimental to standards of living in many modern societies, and moderate government regulation may therefore be inherently necessary to protect its citizens’ democratized access to it. The current administration can stay on the path of newly established international norms—and even rise to lead their continued modernization—or inch closer to the trend of authoritarian governments of crafting policy frameworks that serve to limit access. As the FCC vote represents the first step in this anti-democratic process, we reiterate the call not to reverse the gains made in ensuring equal access to this essential means of communication and interaction. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
Выбор редакции
19 мая, 00:42

FCC votes 2-1 to advance repeal of Obama-era internet rules

(Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Communications Commission voted 2-1 on Thursday to advance a Republican plan to reverse the Obama administration's 2015 "net neutrality" order.