"Net Neutrality" is Repealed, What Does This Mean? And Why You Have No Clue What You Are Talking About. - P.O.W. Report

Friday, December 15, 2017

"Net Neutrality" is Repealed, What Does This Mean? And Why You Have No Clue What You Are Talking About.

A couple of readers and friends in the past couple of days have made comments--hyper-ventilating-- over the fact that the FCC repealed the 2015 Internet censorship legislation that was dubbed "Net Neutrality" to trick Normies into self-censorship by supporting authoritarian legislation signed by the previous administration.

The following is intentionally long and it's intentional because things like these are complicated. So, if you are freaking out about "Net Neutrality" you should read the whole article, if you don't have the time to read, then you have no right to freak out cause you have no idea what you are talking about.

Since I'm a gentleman though here are the spark notes: 

  •  Net Neutrality allows the White House and the Federal Government to delete websites that they disagree with. Period.

FCC repeals 'Net Neutrality' rule despite widespread protests

The Federal Communications Commission has voted to repeal the rules classifying internet providers as public utilities. Critics say this will lead to pay-for-play behavior by providers, while FCC chair argues it will benefit consumers.

The Republican-majority commission voted along party lines on Thursday to repeal the 2015 rules adopted under the Obama administration, which classified ISPs as public utilities under a 1934 law intended to regulate telephone service. FCC chairman Ajit Pai has argued that these “heavy-handed” regulations throttled investment and innovation and harmed poor and rural consumers.

“This is not Thunderdome. The FCC is not killing the internet,” Commissioner Brendan Carr said at the hearing on Thursday. “We are not relying on market forces alone. We are not giving ISPs free reign to dictate your online experience.”

“I dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today,” said Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, adding the repeal puts the FCC “on the wrong side of history.”

Background on Net Neutrality 

The following isn't written by me but it's free-use from the interwebz and is the best explanation for what it is. 

Long before fake news or Net Neutrality (N.N.) became major media topics, the U.S. government was already orchestrating a legal crackdown on anything it would eventually label fake news.

N.N. was just one move in a sequence of events to completely take over the internet. A sequence that happened so slowly none of you noticed it happening at all. After all, Net Neutrality wasn't even all that bad, right? Sure the internet became a quasi-utility, but it didn't really affect you. If anything, you got a chance to finally stick it to Comcast! Go you! Right?

But is anything ever that simple?

Ask yourself why N.N. came out of nowhere. Why was it so heavily advertised? Who paid for the advertising? And who benefited from it?

Now ask yourself what sequence led up to N.N. and who led it to there? Where did the sequence intend to end? Believe it or not, the sequence already came to completion. On Obama's final month in office, the internet was quietly nationalized by legislation he signed the day before Christmas Eve. The president himself became legally capable of taking down any website in the United States within minutes. Of course, that was ruined by the election.

This is a long piece, and the beginning will cover some material that you already know but it is crucial to understand the big picture.

1950 - Education

U.S. House of Representatives commissions the Reese Committee to investigate potential communist influence of domestic NGOs and nonprofits. Head investigator, Norman Dodd, published the final report in which he discovers that the Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie foundations were actively influencing universities to promote "moral relativism" and "internationalism" to the end of "oligarchic collectivism." In other words, globalism. His report was silenced and the two-year investigation was abruptly shut down. 

1980 - Civil Society Sector

The civil society sector is typically understood to be comprised of NGOs and nonprofits that, according to conventional wisdom, engage in humanitarian efforts, human rights advocacy, government accountability, and other international efforts of the sort. But if that was ever true, it isn't anymore, and hasn't been for decades. By 1980 all of civil society had been taken over by private and state interests, operating as proxies for their agendas. Just as Norman Dodd had discovered. Julian Assange gives the contemporary example of Google Ideas, a think-tank that proxies high-risk endeavors directly for the White House. Google Ideas was heavily involved in the Arab Spring, which was instigated by social media. VP of Stratfor said they have a "covert role in foaming up-risings," and that "they are doing things the CIA cannot do."

1990 - Media

Bill Clinton's Telecommunication Act of 1996 legalizes the monopolization of the media, paving the way for a two-decade globalist crusade to consolidate dozens of media outlets into just six. And just like that, the globalists need only pluck six strings to make us dance to their false song. Comcast, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner, News Corp, CBS, and still shrinking. 2000 - Social Media
This section is best summarized by a quote from a reddit user.

"If you happen to have a right-wing perspective, Google puts your search results on the 10th page, Youtube demonetizes your videos (or removes them), Twitter bans your account, and Facebook censors your posts so they never show up in the news feed." 

2010 - The Internet

The globalists, having solidified their control over banks, education, civil society, media, and social media, now turn their gaze to the crown jewel of their decades-long pursuit: the internet itself.

Already controlling much of the internet's media and all the social media platforms that propagate it, the only thing left for the globalists to control is the infrastructure itself that comprises the internet. That's why ISPs are important now. Before Verizon v. FCC, the FCC classified ISPs under Title I of Clinton's 1996 Telecommunications Act, meaning they acted as private entities with minimal regulation from the government. Separate and unrelated to that classification, the FCC held ISPs accountable to the Open-Internet Rules (no throttling, no blocking, no paid-prioritization).

Verizon v. FCC changed that, ruling that if the FCC wanted to enforce Open-Internet Rules they need to re-classify ISPs under Title II as quasi-utilities strictly regulated as "common carriers", effectively a state-licensed monopoly. The most critical factor here is that under Title II, ISPs need to apply for Broadcasting Licenses, which give the government massive leverage over them. There was an insane amount of influence being exerted over Verizon v. FCC by tech companies and their politicians. Netflix allegedly manipulated their own service to frame the ISPs for throttling.

The full extent of the influence is not yet known. It may be that the lawsuit's outcome was sheer coincidence. Regardless, this was a huge win for the globalists, because now they are one step closer to forcing ISPs to apply for Broadcasting Licenses and regularly renew them. Without a license, the ISPs go bankrupt. The government can leverage this over them. Remember this, because Broadcasting Licenses become the globalist's most valuable weapon in just one act more of legislation.

Three judges presided over the case, two Democrats, one Republican:
Laurence H. Silberman (appointed by Ronald Reagan)
Judith Ann Wilson Rogers (appointed by Bill Clinton)
David S. Tatel (appointed by Bill Clinton)

The Clinton-appointee Democrats ruled in favor of the Title II classification ruling. The Reagan-appointee partially dissented. No surprise. Now the FCC is stuck between a rock and a hard place. If they want to enforce Open-Internet they have to practically nationalize the internet, and any company that wants to offer access to the internet must receive a Broadcasting License. The FCC is stumped and can't really figure out what to do next... So Obama comes in to save the day. He pressures them to move forward with the Title II classification and give the government sweeping authority over internet infrastructure. This potentially unpopular move is quickly rebranded with a cute name and sold to the public as... Net Neutrality. Surprise!

The public is told that they are saving the internet! But saving it from whom? Hahaha from the very people who are telling them to save it! Whether by intent or by circumstance, the globalists ended up playing both sides and winning. They revoked Open Internet in Verizon v. FCC, repackaged it, and gave it back to us in a box full of red tape.

Now here's where the story picks up…

Net Neutrality invokes Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 to require all ISPs and any company that provides internet service to register for Broadcasting Licenses from the government and regularly renew them.

Well... what if the FCC doesn't want to renew them? Ah but that's crazy talk, the FCC can't just revoke Broadcasting Licenses on a whim. It would be taken to court within seconds!

But imagine what happens when you're appointed by the president as chairman of the FCC, and shortly after you get a call. And that call you get is from whatever said globalist president rules your timeline. And that globalist president tells you that a particular ISP needs to have its license revoked because it's violating federal law. Well, you'd probably say "fuck you I voted for Trump" and just hang up. But then the office phones start ringing and you get a little nervous because now other government bodies are calling in, all substantiating that yes, in fact, the ISP really is breaking the law. So you hang up, call your lawyer, and ask him to look up all the laws they were talking about to see if the ISP really is violating them. After all, what kind of law would justify such an abuse of power?

None, in fact, that you know of. The next thing that will happen is your lawyer will walk into your office, looking pale as a ghost, and hand you a legal document titled Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692).

This is where everything comes together.

Beads of sweat start to form on your forehead as you begin reading the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You put it down and look up at your lawyer, realizing why his face is drained of life. It was drained by the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692). You're about to ask him a question about the Countering Information Warfare Act of 2016 (S.2692), but you pause, and another thought strikes you-

"Why don't they just call it 'The InfoWars Act’?"

 You look back at the InfoWars Act to read its mission statement.

...counter foreign propaganda and disinformation from our enemies by establishing an interagency center housed at the State Department..."

That's so bizarre, you think to yourself. Usually agencies are created independent from other branches of government, specifically to preserve accountability and dissuade corrupting influences. Why would you bother creating a new independent agency if you're literally going to house it in the White House?

Interagency Center

Okay so it's a center, of multiple agencies. In the White House...

p. 1399 - The head of the Center... shall be appointed by the President.

...that answers directly to the President? Okay? What exactly is it going to do?

Maintain, collect, use, and disseminate records for research and data analysis of foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts...

Wait what? Non-state propaganda? You mean like my evening shitposts on facebook? What the fuck does that mean? Literally everyone on the planet is not a state. And how exactly is propaganda defined? Huh, that's strange... there's no definition in here.

Like they deliberately omitted it so they can just... call it whatever they want. Incredible. You look up to your lawyer, "How the fuck did Obama get this through Congress?"

Your lawyer drops another file on your desk. It looks suspiciously familiar.

"He didn't."

The file is titled National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,

"He waited until Christmas Eve and hid it inside of the 3,000 page annual military budget so nobody would notice it." "So you've already read through it?"

"Oh... yeah no I'm a simple guy I just see a grey arrow and I make it orange."

"Jesus Christ." The lawyer flips through the 3,076 pages of the NDAA to page 1,209 (or 1,287 in pdf format).


The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 1259C) that would direct the Secretary of State in coordination with the Secretary of Defense (and relevant federal departments and agencies and partner nations) to establish a Global Engagement Center (GEC) within 6 months of enactment. The GEC’s general purpose would be to discover, expose and counter foreign government infor-mation warfare efforts (to include foreign propaganda and disinformation efforts) and proactively advance fact-based nar-ratives that support US allies and interests. The GEC would termi-nate 5 years after enactment. The Senate bill contained no similar provision. The Senate recedes with an amendment that included changes to the purpose and functions of the GEC, further specified the ap-pointment, delegation and scope and responsibility and authority of the head of the GEC, modified the authority to transfer funds for the GEC, added a reporting requirement to the appropriate con-gressional committees, and extended the termination of the GEC to 8 years after enactment. Modification of United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (sec. 1288) The House amendment contained a provision (sec. 1259D) that would amend Section 304 of P.L. 103–236 (22 USC 6203) to perma-nently establish the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) position as head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the federal agency that oversees all U.S.-funded non-military international broad-casting, while removing the nine-member bipartisan Board that currently heads the agency. It would also provide certain new flexi-bilities in the BBG CEO’s authorities, including expanded author-ity to allow the BBG CEO to direct appropriated funds and to hire certain personnel. The House amendment also contained a provi-sion (sec. 1259E) that would authorize the BBG CEO to consolidate the current U.S. international broadcasters that receive federal grants as independent non-profit corporations (Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks) into one grantee broadcaster, with certain related ex-panded supervisory roles and authorities vested in the BBG CEO. This provision would also authorize the BBG CEO to establish a similar non-federal broadcasting corporation, receiving a federal op-erating grant, to assume the broadcasting responsibilities of the Voice of America (VOA, the federal government broadcaster oper-ating within the BBG), and abolish VOA as a federal entity. The Senate bill contained no similar provision. The Senate recedes with an amendment that would eliminate the timing requirement for nomination of the BBG CEO, add a no-tification requirement for redirection of funds, establish the inter-national broadcasting advisory board, add a mission definition for the consolidated broadcast entities, and deleted specific discussion of Voice of America.

"This is so much more than just propaganda. Look at what they're going to be doing."

Identifying current and emerging trends in foreign propaganda and disinformation, including the use of print, broadcast, online and social media, support for third-party outlets such as think tanks, political parties, and nongovernmental organizations, and the use of covert or clandestine special operators and agents to influence targeted populations and governments in order to coordinate and shape the development of tactics, techniques, and procedures to expose and refute foreign misinformation and disinformation

"Clandestine special operators?? That's like some Tom Clancey shit!"

The legislation establishes a fund to help train local journalists...

"But just when it couldn't get worse... it gets way fucking worse."

Second, the legislation seeks to leverage expertise from outside government... provide grants and contracts to NGOs, civil society organizations, think tanks, private sector companies, media organizations, and other experts outside the U.S. government...

"They call in their globalist friends from some "totally neutral third-party" and together they can call anyone a propagandist. They can go after literally anybody who's been flagged by a third-party "fact-checker" without having to take them to court. "

"Oh fuck."

"Those fact-checkers were there all along for a reason. They started by flooding the internet with disinformation and then branding the cute term "fake news" to generate a demand for fact-checkers. And then they satisfied the demand that they created. They trained the public to accept the idea of "neutral third-parties" policing online content. Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, Google, all the tech companies, and the White House itself were planning to use bots to auto-flag-and-censor any content that contradicts the fact-checkers... across the entire internet. "

"Fuckin' Snopes.”

"It's brilliant, really. They control the fact-checkers, the enforcers, and with the passage of Title II, the infrastructure to utilize them. Once a propagandist has been targeted, the President can use absolutely anything in the government to stop them."

The Center will develop, integrate, and synchronize whole-of-government initiatives to expose and counter foreign disinformation operations...

And that's it ladies and gentlemen.

That's why passing Net Neutrality is so important.

The President uses the "whole-of-government" to suppress information. Thanks to Net Neutrality's Title II, they can order all ISPs to take down hostile information and any websites that distribute it. If the ISP refuses, their Title II Broadcasting License is legally revoked, they can no longer do business, they go bankrupt, and the government buys out their infrastructure. The government can integrate into the ISPs to censor anything, anywhere, at anytime. The ISPs are forced to obey.


Are you imagining how real this is?

They can physically shut down your access to the internet without a court order! Just because someone called you a propagandist! Just because you shitpost on Facebook or twitter!

They can take down Drudge Report, Breitbart, Fox News and any other right-wing website that pops up to replace it! They would have done this slowly, over the course of years, like they always do, so that nobody would notice until it's too late! They could've taken us down one buy one, year by year, and quietly suppress any online reactions!

And it was 100% legal! They passed every law they needed to do it!


p.1446 - "The Center shall terminate on the date that is 8 years after the date of the enactment of this Act."

They thought she would win.

If you read this all the way through, now you know more about Net Neutrality than anyone else. I sourced all the original documents and confirmed them for myself. If some moron tells you that "getting rid of Net Neutrality will increase my Netflix" tell them that they are morons and all that is just a distraction. There is no point in arguing. And i'm not going to argue with you either. 

This editorial is 100% Fact! Scientific Fact. For that matter. It's irrefutable. To prove this, here is my irrefutable counter argument to anyone who tries to debate me: 

Read More: Mark Zuckerberg is a Robot...

Send a story to powreport@gmail.com and share the news on your social

Subscribe to the news by email!
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Donate just a few dollars a month to keep this website running!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.