I was a decades-long listener of NPR but stopped cold in 2010 when it was clear they were now GLOBAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. What was once socially progressive was now completely Wall Street Clinton neo-liberal and Bush neo-con. The article below shows how national media is deliberately MISINFORMING the American public----and working to make Clinton Wall Street global corporate neo-liberals LOOK progressive when they are not.
The media's focus was on a vote by the FCC in what they termed 'net neutrality' and framed it as protecting the internet for all citizens and small businesses. So, justice organizations like MOVE ON which pushed this net neutrality issue ----WHICH IS VITAL TO ALL AMERICANS-----and then claimed a victory with this FCC vote----AND HAVE NOT EDUCATED AT ALL AS TO WHY THE VOTE TO SELL OUR PUBLIC AIRWAVES WILL END NET NEUTRALITY.
It was the push by this same FCC and Obama to sell public airwaves and then setting the policy for sale so that only the big corporations and billionaires could afford to buy these air wave frequencies at the lower end THAT WILL END NET NEUTRALITY. We will take a look at the Clinton neo-liberals who posed progressive as if they were fighting for net neutrality when they voted to sell public airwaves especially at the lower frequency to only global corporations and the rich.
DID THE JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS THAT CAME OUT FOR NET NEUTRALITY THEN COME OUT TO EDUCATE AS TO HOW THIS FCC SELL OF OF PUBLIC AIRWAVES KILL NET NEUTRALITY? IT NOT, THAT MEANS THE LEADERS OF THAT ORGANIZATION WORK FOR CLINTON WALL STREET NEO-LIBERALS-----
It is no accident that this NPR report was written from Johns Hopkins' WYPR------and that is why it does not educate as to the bait and switch making global pols look like they are protecting the American people when they are not.
The FCC's Net Neutrality Vote: Here's What You Need To Know
Updated February 26, 20151:21 PM ET Published February 26, 20153:08 AM ET
Protesters demonstrate in favor of net neutrality across the street from the Comcast Center in Philadelphia.
Matt Rourke/AP Later this morning, the Federal Communications Commission will take a vote on adopting new rules that would keep the Internet neutral.
Update at 1 p.m. ET 2/26: FCC Adopts Net Neutrality
By a 3-2 vote, the FCC votes to adopt net neutrality rules to "protect the open Internet." Our original post continues:
Here's a guide to what all of this means.
— What does net neutrality mean?
Here's the Cliffs Notes version from NPR's Elise Hu:
"Net neutrality is the concept that your Internet provider should be a neutral gateway to everything on the Internet, not a gatekeeper deciding to load some sites slower than others or impose fees for faster service."
In other words, it's a concept in which Internet service providers (ISPs) don't discriminate when it comes to Internet traffic.
Without net neutrality rules, ISPs could theoretically take money from companies like Netflix or Amazon to speed up traffic to their sites.
NPR's Laura Sydell explained one hypothetical like this:
"More than 30 percent of Internet traffic at peak times comes from Netflix, according to studies. So Verizon might say, 'Netflix, you need to pay us more.' Or maybe Verizon strikes a deal with Amazon and says your prime video service can get speedier delivery to the home and we're going to slow down Netflix."
— What is the FCC voting on?
The Federal Communications Commission is voting on whether to reclassify broadband access as a "telecommunications service under Title II."
In layman's terms, the FCC is looking to reclassify broadband as a utility, which would give the commission more regulatory power over Internet providers.
— What prompted this FCC vote?
Back in 2010, the FCC actually passed rules to keep the Internet neutral. But those rules were challenged by Verizon and in January of 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that the FCC did not have the regulatory power over broadband to issue those rules.
The court, however, said that the FCC could reclassify broadband and that would give it broad regulatory powers.
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler decided to go that direction in February.
Earlier this week, Republicans in Congress dropped opposition to the proposed rules, saying they were not going to pass a bill without any Democratic support.
— What would the proposed rules do?
The proposed rules are pretty lengthy, but from an FCC fact sheet, here are the three things that the rules would ban that matter most to consumers:
"No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
"No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.
"No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration — in other words, no 'fast lanes.' This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates."
YouTube — What does John Oliver have to do with all this?
The comedian John Oliver brought this issue to the forefront when he dedicated 14 minutes on his program to explain why net neutrality is so important.
He called on his viewers to write to the FCC to encourage them to adopt new rules. His call — and the enormous response — broke the commission's website.
A bunch of big Internet sites — Netflix, Etsy and Foursquare among them — joined the chorus in September when they took part in "Internet Slowdown Day," presenting their users with symbolic loading icons "to remind everyone what an Internet without net neutrality would look like."
YOU MAY THINK THESE EUROPEAN POLS ARE VOTING AGAINST NET NEUTRALITY-----BUT THEY VOTED AGAINST THE BILL PASSED BY US CONGRESS----THE ONE THAT WILL END CITIZEN ACCESS TO THE INTERNET.
Remember, Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons are working only for global corporations so net neutrality to global corporations means------making the net neutral for global corporations----it has nothing to do with citizens accessing the internet. They don't want one global corporation getting kick-backs to more access to more internet speed over another global corporation PERIOD.
Below you see Europe taking the right stance------it does not TRICK citizens into believing pols have protected net neutrality with broad and vague language -------this article show politicians voting down the same net neutrality bill that passed the US Congress-----because they wanted strong language in the bill that this was net neutrality FOR ALL----ESPECIALLY CITIZENS.
So, all of Maryland pols are Wall Street Clinton neo-liberals and Bush neo-cons and all voted for this BAD POLICY ON NET NEUTRALITY while PRETENDING to be protecting the citizens of Maryland and Baltimore.
BALTIMORE'S MARYLAND ASSEMBLY POLS AND BALTIMORE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR ARE THE STRONGEST PUSHERS OF DEREGULATION AND CONSOLIDATION POLICIES MAKING BALTIMORE TOTALLY CAPTURED BY GLOBAL MEDIA.
European Parliament votes against net neutrality amendments
By Chris Baraniuk Technology reporter
- 27 October 2015
- From the section Technology
The rules have implications for how internet companies are allowed to deliver data to customers
The European Parliament has voted against a set of rules intended to safeguard "net neutrality" in the EU.
A series of amendments to a regulation on how internet traffic is managed in Europe were all rejected by MEPs.
Proponents of net neutrality, who demand that web traffic be treated equally by networks, have already criticised the move.
The existing legislation, which was accepted, will be developed into regulations.
Campaigners have said that provisions for protecting net neutrality in the existing text of the rules are too vague and many worry that it will be easy for internet firms to strike deals with content providers which may not be advantageous for everyone.
For example, it is thought that so-called "zero rating" agreements, in which customers can access certain sites and services for free outside their data plans, might become more widespread.
While this could be beneficial for those who want to access content from those providers, others worry that it will stifle innovation.
The rules, however, do stipulate that network companies will not be able to offer or market paid-for access to "fast lanes". Traffic management, they add, should be based on objective technical requirements.
Although some campaigners had suggested there might be growing support for the amendments within the parliament, all were voted down in large majorities.
It is thought that many MEPs would have been reluctant to begin a process of amending the regulation given that it might have delayed another aspect of the rules - the abolition of mobile data roaming charges.
Net neutrality: What does it mean?The result is "hardly surprising" according to legal expert Chris Marsden at the University of Sussex, given that many of the major parties represented in the parliament all supported the regulation text without amendments.
The Body of European Regulators (BEREC) would now have nine months to issue guidelines to bodies like Ofcom in the UK, he added.
"So, [by] September next year we will have the guidelines and the real enforcement work begins," he told the BBC.
Dr Marsden also said there were still plenty of unknowns, such as what form regulations on "zero ratings" and fast and slow lane services might actually take.
There was also the issue of how laws in the Netherlands, Slovenia and Finland - which all have special net neutrality protections in place - would be affected.
Some initial guidelines, Dr Marsden added, would not be ready until 2016.
Michael Theurer, a liberal German MEP described the outcome as "regrettable" and added that he felt the regulations as passed do not include a clear definition of net neutrality to inform regulators.
Prior to the vote, the inventor of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee and a host of tech companies had expressed their support for the amendments and urged MEPs to vote them through.
Firms which has openly supported the amendments included:
"Maintaining that information flow is an expensive process and the cost of running that infrastructure is falling on the shoulders of ISPs.
"For them, a two-tier internet makes much more sense," he told the BBC.
What is net neutrality?
The idea that data should be ferried from place to place as quickly as possible, regardless of what it is, is how most people assume the internet works.
That's the essence of net neutrality.
However, it's possible to decide to prioritise certain types of data over others - perhaps, for example, by charging the producers of such data a fee to make sure their content gets delivered promptly.
For big video streaming sites, the prospect is worrying. They could find themselves coughing up lots of money in fees simply to give their users the same experience as before.
Some argue, however, that such fees are fair since it costs internet service providers a lot of money to keep providing such content, no matter how popular the streaming sites become.
Image caption Proponents of net neutrality say it's the best way to enable free and open competition on the web
How could the rules affect internet use?
Part of the problem with the rules in their current form, argued Joe McNamee at the European Digital Rights campaign group, is that they are ambiguous.
"As the text currently stands there is no indication as to how much abuse of dominance would be permissible under this arrangement," he told the BBC.
The sort of scenarios that could impact internet use include the creation of "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" or the creation of "zero ratings" in which some services may be accessed without using up any of the internet user's data quota.
In Belgium, for example, some mobile phone companies currently allow unlimited access to Twitter and Facebook while all other data usage is part of a monthly plan. In a few countries such as the Netherlands, such practices are not allowed.
Who had argued that the amendments be adopted?
Besides a host of net neutrality campaigners, inventor of the world wide web Sir Tim Berners-Lee had added his voice to those supporting the amendments.
"If adopted as currently written, these rules will threaten innovation, free speech and privacy, and compromise Europe's ability to lead in the digital economy," he wrote in a blog.
WHAT???? YOU MEAN THE US VERSION OF NET NEUTRALITY THREATENS INNOVATION, FREE SPEECH, AND PRIVACY? HOW GLOBAL CORPORATE OF THE US CONGRESS AND OBAMA.
And a string of tech companies signed a letter to the president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz, asking MEPs to adopt the amendments.
The firms included Netflix, Tumblr, Vimeo, Kickstarter and Reddit.
"I was contacted by a number of start-ups and investors because they were deeply concerned about the impact of the European Parliament's network neutrality proposals on start-up innovation in Europe," Stanford professor Barbara van Schewick, who helped pen the letter, told the BBC.
Image copyright Getty Images
Image caption Tom Wheeler, chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission, has overseen a long-running debate on net neutrality
Do other countries have net neutrality?
Interestingly, three countries within the EU - Netherlands, Slovenia and Finland - already have a range of net neutrality rules enshrined in law.
These laws might have to be altered depending on how the new, EU-wide rules are interpreted by regulators later.
Elsewhere, net neutrality has received some regulatory protection in the United States after a vote in February this year placed new restrictions on what deals could be sought by internet firms with content providers.
But in other countries, such as India, "zero rating" is allowed.
"It's a fragmented picture across the board," said Dr Marsden.
"It's an extremely difficult area and there are probably no absolutely right answers."
I am using NPR and American Public Media with MarketPlace today to show how our national PUBLIC MEDIA is as captured by global corporations as our private---Congress gutted funding of NPR and national public media ---a Republican goal for decades as with Clinton neo-liberals-----and opened these public media to selling advertising for operational costs. So, most support comes from corporate donation and/or outright purchase of airtime for corporate advertisement. The laws regarding public media state as they do in Maryland and Baltimore------to be public the majority of fund raising must come from individual donors. So, national public media is now Global Chamber of Commerce----and MarketPlace dominates in all talks about economy.....and it is always hiding the real goals.
NATIONAL PUBLIC MEDIA WAS ALLOWED TO BE TAKEN CORPORATE BY A CONGRESS PRETENDING SYSTEMIC CORPORATE FRAUD OF OUR US TREASURY LAST DECADE NEEDED AUSTERITY OF PUBLIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO REPLACE REVENUE IN GOVERNMENT COFFERS----AND GUTTED FUNDING TO OUR NATIONAL AND LOCAL PUBLIC MEDIAS AND IGNORED ENFORCING THAT INDIVIDUAL DONORS MUST DRIVE PUBLIC MEDIA FUNDING.
This is how Johns Hopkins and its WYPR expanded and now has 3 stations---all called public----yet filled with corporate advertising and corporate donations with very little individual donations.
Our public media used to be the source of Fairness Doctrine---giving real opposing policy ----this is yet another loss to Americans needing counter-point to stop propaganda.
Below you see this report makes it seem progressive---after all, they are auctioning the most valuable public air waves vital to our national security for 'payroll tax cuts and unemployment'. This 'sliver of spectrum' is never defined as that spectrum that allows national air wave coverage-----ergo, selling these airwaves to global corporations will prohibit the American citizens from having a national TV industry.
So all that debate about extending unemployment which allowed states to opt-out----or allowed states to juke unemployment stats to opt-out----AND MOST STATES DID----just to hide the fact they were selling vital public airwaves. NPR and MarketPlace APM always act as if the American people are demanding more broadband and internet applications when most Americans do not use most APPS. It is like having hundreds of cable stations when most people watch just a few. When NPR and APM were truly socially liberal----they would be the ones shouting like I am----educating as to why all this is bad.
Congress finds funds in the airwaves
By Bob Moon
February 17, 2012 | 12:00 AM
Parts of the broadcast spectrum will be auctioned off to help cover the costs of the payroll tax cut and extended long-term unemployment benefits. Even a sliver of spectrum could bring a big chunk of cash.
Kai Ryssdal: The bipartisan meeting of the minds in Washington over the payroll tax cut and extended unemployment benefits became official today. There was some nose-holding by members on both sides of the aisle as they voted, but the House and Senate did approve the social security tax holiday that will continue through the end of the year. Millions of americans who've spent long months trying to find a job will keep getting long-term unemployment benefits, although the program will wind down as part of the deal. The current 99-week maximum for benefit checks will be trimmed to 73 weeks by September.
Political compromise, though, most definitely does not come cheap. $120 billion over the next five years is the estimate from the Congressional Budget Office. Where are they gonna find the money? For one thing, Congress plans to auction off parts of something called the spectrum.
Our senior business correspondent Bob Moon walks us through the selling of the public airwaves.
Bob Moon: You've got your AM and FM radio, TV stations, Citizens' Band, police, fire, military, air traffic control, radar -- and even car-door key fobs. They all use different frequencies of the radio spectrum. But it's the exploding popularity of smartphones and streaming video that's turned wireless onramps to the information superhighway into a frustrating crawl at times. And the Federal Communications Commission is only expecting the jam to get worse.
Glenn Fleishman is a tech writer for The Economist online.
Glenn Fleishman: Just like you could only fly a certain number of planes through the air at the same time, wireless spectrum works in much the same way. You have a certain amount of air space, and you can only send a certain amount of wireless data or voice data through that space.
The FCC's answer is to clear more space in the wireless spectrum, and sell it to the highest bidder. Open frequencies are in high demand, even as channels set aside for the nation's TV broadcasters go unused. Christian Sandvig is a media professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He says most of us have cable.
Christian Sandvig: By some estimates, you might say about 9 percent of the population of the United States is watching television over the air, and dropping. On the other hand, the population of people who want to use cell phones, especially smartphones, to do things like browse the Web, keeps increasing.
So Congress has decided to auction off slivers of the spectrum, hoping to raise around $22 billion. TV stations will be given a small share of the proceeds, if they agree to give up the channels they were authorized to use for free.
Sandvig: Here -- if you just get off this spectrum, we'll give you some money.
You could call it making money out of thin air.
I'm Bob Moon for Marketplace.
Obama and Congressional neo-liberals joined Republicans to support these FCC policies of selling airwaves vital to national security to what will be global corporations----the FCC was allowed to write the policy in ways that would FORCE LOCAL STATIONS TO WANT TO SELL THEIR TV AND RADIO STATIONS to profit from the sales-----in other words-----the FCC pushed so much consolidation of the American media industry to the same few global media corporations that it made our local stations feel they needed to get out of the business.....THERE GOES COMPETITION-----BROAD PROGRAMMING----AND HOLDING POWER ACCOUNTABLE.
Maryland saw its public stations tied to universities sell out their stations----of course that is from where we get most of our local community voice---although Maryland had that voice captured to corporations as well.
Obama and the FCC as well as our Clinton neo-liberal and Republican Congress are telling us this is all about bringing revenue to our US Treasury-----the amount brought from these sales of our public air waves would not even cover the hundred of billions of dollars Obama's IRS ignored in allowing systemic corporate tax evasion these several years-----and is not even a speck of revenue lost in last decade's corporate fraud of tens of trillions of dollars. Over a trillion dollars was sent to global corporations under the 'stimulus' all used to expand overseas----
SO NONE OF THESE SALES HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH BRINGING REVENUE TO FEDERAL COFFERS AND IT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH HARMING NATIONAL SECURITY AND OUR RIGHTS AS CITIZENS TO ACCESS WHAT HAS BECOME A VITAL UTILITY----THE INTERNET.
You won't hear this on NPR----our any of our local public media stations like WYPR----they don't want the American people to understand where all these policies lead----DON'T TELL THEM THE GOALS!
Once again, all of these policies are illegal----they violate all of our US Constitution and Federal laws against monopoly and anti-trust. They are a threat to our national security----as well as state and local security as all media falls into the hands of global media corporations. This is what Europe is fighting as it makes its net neutrality laws as in the article above----
WHILE IN THE US----ALL LABOR AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS AND POLS THAT SHOULD BE SHOUTING LOUDLY ARE LED NATIONALLY BY CLINTON NEO-LIBERAL LEADERS.
TV stations feel 'squeezed' by airwave auction
by AP11 Apr 20130
(AP) TV stations feel ‘squeezed’ by airwave auction
By RYAN NAKASHIMA
AP Business Writer
As the federal government tries to encourage companies like AT&T and Verizon to create bigger, faster mobile networks, TV broadcasters are feeling like the farmers of yesteryear who were asked to sell their land to make way for the nation’s highways.
Broadcasters own a valuable swath of invisible real estate on the airwaves and just like farmers, their livelihoods depend on cultivating that fertile space. But the FCC believes clearing new lanes of over-the-air bandwidth will ease mobile network congestion, which leads to dropped calls, stuttering video and hanging emails.
Broadcasters say they are already feeling the pinch after giving up precious airwaves in the transition to digital TV in 2009. They are worried that their businesses may be in jeopardy as the government embarks on an unprecedented auction. They fret they’ll be short-changed in a complex process that is expected to rake billions of dollars into federal coffers.
“We’ve already been squeezed once,” said Gordon Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, on the sidelines of the industry’s annual gathering, NAB Show, which wrapped up Thursday. “We’re being squeezed twice now. There’s no more juice in that squeeze.”
Dozens of stations nationwide are expected to sell voluntarily _ and go out of business _ to make way for these new mobile data highways. The process relies on a complicated “reverse auction” that involves multiple steps, each fraught with the potential for confusion.
The government wants to clear 500 megaHertz of spectrum by 2020, with 120 mHz coming from TV stations. That’s the equivalent of 20 TV stations in each market across the country. Not every market has that many TV stations, so the FCC will likely clear the path it needs merely by shuffling broadcasters around.
In February, the FCC outlined how its plan would work. Starting in late 2014, TV stations will submit bids detailing how much they would accept for either going off the air, moving to a lower channel number, or sharing a channel with another station.
REMEMBER, THE LOWER CHANNEL NUMBERS WILL BE TAKEN BY GLOBAL MEDIA SO MOVING THERE WILL END IN BEING FORCED TO MERGE---OR AS BELOW A SMART MAN SAYS 'BAMBOOZLED'.
Mobile phone carriers will then submit bids for how much they would pay to use potential new airwaves. The FCC hopes to match buyers to sellers, and “repack” the airwaves as much as possible to give wireless companies the use of singular bands across the country.
The repacking could result in some TV stations being forced to relocate their broadcast towers and change channel numbers on the dial. As the auction gets closer, TV station owners’ anxiety is growing.
“You could get bamboozled here,” said Mark Fehlig, an industry consultant in Lawrenceville, Ga.
Station owners don’t know which stations might sell _ the process will remain anonymous until the last minute _ and sellers don’t know if their bids will be accepted and for how much. Moving TV stations along the U.S. borders will require cooperation from Canada and Mexico so any changes don’t interfere with signals in those countries.
Meredith Corp., which owns 13 TV stations, is concerned about its CBS affiliate WNEM in Flint, Mich. The FCC’s repacking could have an effect on its signal in its own market and in nearby Detroit. Meredith also has to consider that it competes with signals coming from the Canadian city of Sarnia, Ontario, just 70 miles east. Most people receive local TV stations feeds through pay TV providers like cable and satellite companies, but if any homes that rely on antennas lose service, it could result in some angry phone calls.
“There’s so much uncertainty about how that might work,” said Paul Karpowicz, president of Meredith’s local media group, who added that the company has no intention of selling out. “Our issue is simply the collateral damage as it relates to repacking.”
Fears aside, the entire process could result in a big windfall for the U.S. government.
In the nationwide transition from analog to digital over-the-air TV signals in 2009, the government created new space on the airwaves by packing broadcasters closer together, and it raised $20 billion by selling off about 50 mHz to wireless carriers. The goal of this auction, to sell more than double that, could raise even more.
The government expects to profit handsomely from the difference between what wireless carriers are willing to pay and what struggling TV stations would accept for closing up shop.
Some industry players believe the government is meddling in what would better be left to the private market.
Preston Padden, executive director of a group of interested TV station sellers called the Expanding Opportunities for Broadcasters Coalition, is worried that the government’s profit motive could result in the sellers receiving less money than they could by negotiating the sale of their broadcast licenses on their own.
He represents more than 40 TV stations in major markets like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit and Philadelphia, that would sell if the price is right. None are affiliates of major networks such as ABC, CBS, NBC or Fox. But their cooperation could be essential if the auction is to succeed in cities where mobile data traffic is the most clogged.
Padden complains that the process is “only as messy as it is because the government’s in the middle.”
“If the FCC tries to administer the prices to keep them low, they have alternatives and there are other things they can do with the spectrum,” he said.
Some broadcasters also worry that the auction could harm diversity of programming, since the TV stations most likely to sell are barely profitable, serving small niche markets such as foreign-language speakers. The FCC has stressed that no TV station that wants to stay in business will be forced off the air.
Outgoing FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski told the conference on Wednesday that the development of the market for mobile video would help, not hurt, TV stations, especially those trying to reach their viewers on tablets and smartphones.
“What’s the biggest threat to mobile being a major opportunity for broadcasters? It’s the spectrum crunch,” Genachowski said. “If we don’t solve that, the ability to take full advantage of interactive video on the mobile platform won’t be there.”
Anika Evans, a board member of Gila River Telecommunications Inc., said she is worried that the repacking of the airwaves could jeopardize a two-year effort to set up a network of seven TV stations to broadcast council meetings and other programming to her low-income Native American community in Arizona.
The tribe hasn’t built its stations yet and there are only two years left on its license to get them up and running. A forced channel change could endanger an expected $1 million-plus investment in technology.
“If come August 2014, they say, `Oh you know what, we’re going to reposition you,’ then we would have to re-invest in potentially a different technology,” she said. “That’s where the danger lies for us.”
Having less bandwidth devoted to TV also means it’ll be harder for ambitious TV station networks to grow.
Jeff Dineen, president and majority owner of the operator of the Bold TV Network, invested in a TV channel in Los Angeles that reaches 2.5 million homes in 2010 and is expanding to Alabama, North Carolina, Texas and elsewhere. His strategy is to buy smaller channels for as little as $50,000 apiece and program them with documentaries, reality TV and family-friendly shows for antenna-only homes. With fewer channels devoted to TV, it’ll be tougher to expand.
“If there’s 20 fewer stations in each market, then that severely impacts my business plan,” he said. “It’ll ultimately stunt our growth and could theoretically put us out of business.”
All of this FCC policy is tied to moving global corporations that have their business online-----like global health care and global education ------all needing high-speed internet for their businesses----THIS IS FOR WHICH ALL THAT 'NET NEUTRALITY' and selling of air waves policy works. So, Johns Hopkins and its global health tourism and telemedicine will need tons of high-speed internet access-----as will the Ivy League universities touting their online global campuses needing high-speed for video lectures and conferencing.....THIS IS ALL THESE INTERNET POLICIES ARE FOR----and it all leads to the American people not accessing the internet.
This is why I have for these several years shouted how building these global economies is bad----and Baltimore of course is ground zero for all that is global. This is true for our public universities-----it is critical to protect our public health system------so
STOP ALLOWING GLOBAL POLS TO INSTALL INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC ZONES THAT ARE ALL ABOUT TAKING ALL OUR INTERNET ACCESS AND EVEN OUR ABILITY TO WATCH TV.
Shhhhhhhhhh!!! Johns Hopkins doesn't want anyone to know and its WYPR and Baltimore Sun will make sure you don't!
Global Telemedicine Market Headed For $27 Billion
BCC Research report says global demand continues to grow, while U.S. market is thriving thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The global telemedicine market grew from $9.8 billion in 2010 to $11.6 billion in 2011 and will almost triple to $27.3 billion in 2016, a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18.6% over the next five years, according to a report from BCC Research.The report, Global Markets for Telemedicine Technologies, is based on interviews with manufacturers and users of telemedicine technologies and services, as well as from reviews of secondary sources such as company literature, conference proceedings, and related government data.
The study's findings come at a time when telemedicine is being adopted by several nations that are using the technology to close the gap in healthcare while lowering the cost of treating patients.
A deeper dive into the research shows that the telemedicine market is segmented into telehospital/clinic and telehome markets. In 2010 the telehospital/clinic market was worth $6.9 billion, and the telehome market was valued at nearly $2.9 billion. The study also found that the telehome segment is growing faster than the telehospital/clinic segment--at a projected CAGR of 22.5% vs. 16.8%--and as a result is expected to increase its share of the market from 29.4% in 2010 to 35.6% by 2016.
[ Most of the largest healthcare data security and privacy breaches have involved lost or stolen mobile computing devices. For possible solutions, see 7 Tools To Tighten Healthcare Data Security. ]
The report also pointed out that the telemedicine market is segmented into technology--hardware, software, telecom, network--and service segments. The technology portion grew from $3.8 billion in 2010 to $4.6 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach $11.3 billion in 2016, with a CAGR of 19.8% over the next five years.
The market for telemedicine services increased from $5.9 billion in 2010 to $7 billion in 2011 and is expected to reach nearly $16 billion in 2016, mainly driven by growth in the telehospital service market. The study also found that the telehospital service market grew from $4.8 billion in 2010 to $5.5 billion in 2011 and could reach $10.6 billion in 2016, with a CAGR 13.9% between 2011 and 2016.
A closer look at U.S. trends suggests that telemedicine market growth has been driven by the implementation of the Obama administration's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a two-year-old law that has intensified the focus on telemedicine as a way to treat an increasing number of people who will be seeking health insurance and medical services. Telemedicine technology enables healthcare personnel to meet this increasing demand without delays in treatment or rationing care, the BCC Research report concludes.
"The PPACA is a catalyst for the increased use of telemedicine," Andrew Williams, a BCC Research analyst, told InformationWeek Healthcare.
Williams noted that the law contains several provisions that could affect telemedicine. For example, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMI) has been directed to test new models of care using telemedicine to improve the care of hospitalized patients, including those in intensive care, through electronic monitoring by specialists located at other facilities. The CMI also is developing new care models that use patient-based remote monitoring systems to coordinate care over time and across settings.
In addition, the CMI is exploring the use of providers located in medically underserved areas and facilities that are part of the Indian Health Service to provide telehealth services for treating stroke and behavioral health problems such as post-traumatic stress disorder. The CMI also is studying ways to improve the capacity of non-medical providers and non-specialized medical providers to provide health services for patients with chronic conditions. Williams also noted that accountable care organizations are required to create ways to promote evidence-based medicine and patient engagement, report on quality and cost measures, and coordinate care. Among the tactics being considered: telehealth and remote patient monitoring.
The federal government's initiatives have advanced the adoption of telemedicine at hospitals, and that is reflected in BCC's research, said Williams. In the previous edition of the BCC report, many providers said they weren't sure whether telemedicine was a sound business investment, but now, "a growing number of healthcare providers appear to have become convinced of telemedicine's potential benefits," he said.
The 2012 InformationWeek Healthcare IT Priorities Survey finds that grabbing federal incentive dollars and meeting pay-for-performance mandates are the top issues facing IT execs. Find out more in the new, all-digital Time To Deliver issue of InformationWeek Healthcare. (Free registration required.)
OH, THE ONE THING THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US SMALL TELECOMS TO CREATE COMPETITION TO GLOBAL TELECOMS------UNBUNDLING OF LOCAL NETWORKS------THE FCC DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT! THIS IS HOW YOU KNOW THEY ARE NOT WORKING FOR WE THE PEOPLE.
'The FCC could have tried to use Title II to require last-mile unbundling, in which Internet providers would have to sell wholesale access to their networks.This would allow new competitors to enter local markets without having to build their own infrastructure. But the FCC decided not to impose unbundling'.
Knowing that the internet will become simply a global business highway------why would Clinton/Obama neo-liberals address the internet as a public utility WHICH IS WHAT WE WANTED -----while allowing the restructuring of all media to global online and using policy like Affordable Care Act to create these global internet businesses? Remember, there is limited airwave and digital space------and these global businesses are going to super-size what is taken-----
The answer is the same as with all public private partnership policies coming from Clinton/Obama neo-liberals-----US taxpayers will pay to maintain and upgrade this internet system that we no longer can access.
Ask why, when Obama and Clinton neo-liberals are dismantling all public utility status for water, energy, transportation, education-------would global pols make the internet a public utility----the answer is that trillions of dollars in taxpayer money is needed to build and expand this new 'public' utility.
We can work at city and state level to end this global corporate capture----we do not want International Economic Zones-----they intend to be our entire local economy ------so make FEZ/TPP ---FREE ZONES of all American cities-----shout loudly and use national security and sovereignty laws to break these global policies up and we can return to REAL internet neutrality for citizens, small businesses, and corporations.
Global pols do not want American citizens connecting all these policies so we know what the goals are-----here we are doing the right thing fighting for internet to be a utility and to be net neutral----but we are not watching as global corporate pols move forward to make sure none of this happens.
Think about how these few decades from Clinton/Bush/Obama how Executive Order of Federalism Act has been used to allow the Federal agencies to ignore enforcement of Federal laws ----we all are suffering from this----so do we really think an FCC under a global pol is going to enforce net neutrality rules to the people's favor? Of course not. Then think how Trans Pacific Trade Pact seeks to allow global corporations to operate outside US laws and US Constitutional rights......IT IS ALL BOGUS IF WE DO NOT SEND GLOBAL POLS PACKING.
FCC votes for net neutrality, a ban on paid fast lanes, and Title IIInternet providers are now common carriers, and they're ready to sue.
by Jon Brodkin - Feb 26, 2015 12:59pm EST
A November 2014 rally at the White House. Public input played an important role in the net neutrality debate.
The Federal Communications Commission today voted to enforce net neutrality rules that prevent Internet providers—including cellular carriers—from blocking or throttling traffic or giving priority to Web services in exchange for payment.
“This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech.”
The most controversial part of the FCC's decision reclassifies fixed and mobile broadband as a telecommunications service, with providers to be regulated as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. This decision brings Internet service under the same type of regulatory regime faced by wireline telephone service and mobile voice, though the FCC is forbearing from stricter utility-style rules that it could also apply under Title II.
The decision comes after a year of intense public interest, with the FCC receiving four million public comments from companies, trade associations, advocacy groups, and individuals. President Obama weighed in as well, asking the FCC to adopt the rules using Title II as the legal underpinning. The vote was 3-2, with Democrats voting in favor and Republicans against.
Chairman Tom Wheeler said that broadband providers have the technical ability and financial incentive to impose restrictions on the Internet. Wheeler said further:
The Internet is the most powerful and pervasive platform on the planet. It is simply too important to be left without rules and without a referee on the field. Think about it. The Internet has replaced the functions of the telephone and the post office. The Internet has redefined commerce, and as the outpouring from four million Americans has demonstrated, the Internet is the ultimate vehicle for free expression. The Internet is simply too important to allow broadband providers to be the ones making the rules.
This proposal has been described by one opponent as "a secret plan to regulate the Internet." Nonsense. This is no more a plan to regulate the Internet than the First Amendment is a plan to regulate free speech. They both stand for the same concepts: openness, expression, and an absence of gate keepers telling people what they can do, where they can go, and what they can think.
Wheeler also said putting rules in place will give network operators the certainty they need to keep investing.
In May 2014, the Wheeler-led commission proposed rules that relied on weaker authority and did not ban paid fast lanes. Wheeler eventually changed his mind, leading to today's vote.
Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, the longest-tenured commissioner and someone who supported Title II five years ago, said the net neutrality order does not address only theoretical harms.
"This is more than a theoretical exercise," she said. "Providers here in the United States have, in fact, blocked applications on mobile devices, which not only hampers free expression, it also restricts innovation by allowing companies, not the consumer, to pick winners and losers."
Clyburn convinced Chairman Tom Wheeler to remove language that she believed was problematic.
“We worked closely with the chairman's office to strike an appropriate balance and, yes, it is true that significant changes were made at my office's request, including the elimination of the sender side classification, but I firmly believe that these edits have strengthened this item," she said.
Clyburn, Google, and consumer advocacy groups told Wheeler that language classifying a business relationship between ISPs and Web services as a common carrier service could give ISPs grounds to charge online content providers for access to their networks. This language was removed, but service that ISPs offer to home and business Internet users was still reclassified as a common carrier service. FCC officials believe this classification alone gives them power to enforce net neutrality rules and oversee network interconnection disputes that affect consumers.
Wireless net neutrality puts Verizon and rivals on equal footingSpecial no-blocking rules for Verizon's spectrum will apply to all carriers.
Internet service providers such as Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon lobbied heavily against the Title II decision and could sue to overturn the rules. But Wheeler believes Title II puts the FCC on stronger legal ground. The FCC previously passed net neutrality rules in 2010, relying on some of its weaker authority, but the rules were largely overturned after a Verizon lawsuit.
By winning that case, Verizon inadvertently opened itself and all other Internet providers up to even stricter rules. The new rules go beyond the net neutrality rules passed in 2010. And this time around, the FCC is applying the rules equally to fixed and mobile broadband, whereas its 2010 rules went easier on Verizon's wireless subsidiary and other cellular companies.
The core net neutrality provisions are bans on blocking and throttling traffic, a ban on paid prioritization, and a requirement to disclose network management practices. Broadband providers will not be allowed to block or degrade access to legal content, applications, services, and non-harmful devices or favor some traffic over others in exchange for payment. There are exceptions for "reasonable network management" and certain data services that don't use the "public Internet." Those include heart monitoring services and the Voice over Internet Protocol services offered by home Internet providers.
The reasonable network management exception applies to blocking and throttling but not paid prioritization.
There are additional Title II requirements that go beyond previous net neutrality rules. There are provisions to investigate consumer complaints, privacy rules, and protections for people with disabilities. Content providers and network operators who connect to ISPs' networks can complain to the FCC about "unjust and unreasonable" interconnection rates and practices. There are also rules guaranteeing ISPs access to poles and other infrastructure controlled by utilities, potentially making it easier to enter new markets. (Republican commissioner Ajit Pai argued that the new rules will actually make cable companies and new providers like Google Fiber pay higher fees for access to utility poles.)
Making the Internet a utility—what’s the worst that could happen?
A cable lobby lawyer reveals the industry’s darkest fears.
There is also a "general conduct" standard designed to judge whether future activity not contemplated by the order harms end users or online content providers.
The FCC could have tried to use Title II to require last-mile unbundling, in which Internet providers would have to sell wholesale access to their networks. This would allow new competitors to enter local markets without having to build their own infrastructure. But the FCC decided not to impose unbundling. As such, the vote does little to boost Internet service competition in cities or towns. But it's an attempt to prevent incumbent ISPs from using their market dominance to harm online providers, including those who offer services that compete against the broadband providers' voice and video products.
What’s next: Lawsuits and Congressional intervention
Opponents claim the order will bring new taxes and fees on broadband consumers and onerous procedural requirements for providers. But Wheeler says the order will not authorize any new taxes or fees or impose any "burdensome administrative filing requirements or accounting standards."
Broadband providers claim the rules amount to rate regulation because consumers could bring complaints about their bills to the commission, and the FCC could decide that a particular price is unreasonable. But the FCC would not determine any pricing in advance of specific complaints. Even without Title II, the FCC has authority under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act to impose price caps on broadband, but it hasn't done so.
Don’t call them “utility” rules: The FCC’s net neutrality regime, explained
Not the end of the world: What Tom Wheeler’s proposal will and won’t do.
“The order retains core authority to prevent unjust and unreasonable practices, protect consumers, and support universal service,” Melissa Kirkel, an FCC attorney advisor, told commissioners. “The order makes clear that broadband providers will not be subject to utility-style regulation. This means no unbundling, tariffs, or other forms of rate regulation, and the order does not require broadband providers to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, nor does it impose, suggest, or authorize any new taxes or fees.”
Today's order could face both legal challenges and action from Congress. Republicans have proposed legislation that would eliminate Title II restrictions for broadband providers and vowed that the FCC vote is just the beginning of the debate.
Although many ISPs publicly oppose the new rules, the industry is by no means united against the FCC. Sprint and T-Mobile US have each said the FCC's proposal would not hurt their business. And while a good number of small broadband providers oppose the imposition of Title II rules, others support Wheeler. The NTCA Rural Broadband Association, which represents rural ISPs, said yesterday that it supports applying Title II to broadband networks.
Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web, spoke to the commission via video. He credited the openness of the Internet with allowing him to create the Web 25 years ago without having to ask "permission."
Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly dissented, accusing Wheeler of bowing to Obama's wishes. O'Rielly's written statement said:
Let me start by issuing apologies. First, I am just sick about what Chairman Wheeler was forced to go through during this process. It was disgraceful to have the Administration overtake the commission’s rulemaking process and dictate an outcome for pure political purposes. It is so disturbing to know that those efforts were about illegitimately pushing a larger political cause mostly unrelated to technology. This administration went so far beyond what has ever been attempted, and its inappropriate interference in the commission’s activities will forever change this institution.
Additionally, I am sorry to the staff members that were forced to prepare a half-baked, illogical, internally inconsistent, and indefensible document. For an institution that prides itself on quality of work and legal and technical expertise, this document is anything but. I guess that an artificial deadline to meet the radical protestors’ demands means that it is more likely that this item gets overturned by the courts because the work and thoughtful analysis needed to actually defend this completely flawed agenda is not included in the text.
Today, a majority of the commission attempts to usurp the authority of Congress by re-writing the Communications Act to suit its own “values” and political ends.
O'Rielly did not recite the first two paragraphs while reading his statement during the meeting.
Some entrepreneurs spoke in front of the commission. Veena Sud, a writer, director, and producer who developed the TV show The Killing, said the show "survived two near deaths" because of the Open Internet. "When AMC canceled us yet again, Netflix took over the show in its entirety and we were able to end the series as it was intended, all because the Internet was opened up to competition and widened the playing field."
FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel said, "We cannot have a two-tiered Internet with fast lanes that speed the traffic of the privileged and leave the rest of us lagging behind. We cannot have gatekeepers who tell us what we can and cannot do and where we can and cannot go online, and we do not need blocking, throttling, or paid prioritization schemes that undermine the Internet as we know it."
Pai said the FCC is replacing Internet freedom with "government control." The FCC is seizing unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct and determine what service plans are available to consumers, he said.
"The Internet is not broken. There is no problem for the government to solve," he said.
Pai claimed that an Internet provider could "find itself in the FCC's crosshairs" if it doesn't want to offer unlimited data plans. The FCC's order does not actually ban data caps; instead, the FCC is claiming authority to intervene when companies use data caps to harm competitors or customers.
Pai said the FCC is only deferring a decision on new Universal Service fees for broadband rather than ruling them out entirely. Universal Service fees, which fund telecommunications projects in rural and under-served regions, currently apply to phone bills but not Internet service.
The full net neutrality order has not been published yet. The FCC's majority is required to include the Republicans' dissents in the order and "be responsive to those dissents," Wheeler said. The order will go on the FCC's website after that process. The rules will go into effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, with one small exception. Enhancements to the transparency rule must undergo an additional review by the Office of Management and Budget to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act.