Example letter to Committee on Telecommunications http://members.naruc.org/4DCGI/committees/committeeroles.html? Action=naruc&naruc_Activity=CommitteeandRole&CommCode=NARUC123 The big corporations I speak about are market operators which restrict competition and firms that hold a dominant position on a given market and have abused that position. I kindly request you to research this in accordance with: antitrust policy which is developed from two central rules: First, prohibiting agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition. This provision covers both horizontal agreements (between actual or potential competitors operating at the same level of the supply chain) and vertical agreements (between firms operating at different levels, i.e. agreement between a manufacturer and its distributor). Only limited exceptions are provided for in the general prohibition. The most flagrant example of illegal conduct infringing the antitrust law is the creation of a cartel between competitors, which may involve price-fixing and/or market sharing. Second, prohibiting firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers. Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between States. Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions; (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers; (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage; (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts. You are empowered to apply these rules and you have a number of investigative powers to that end (e.g. inspection at business and non-business premises, written requests for information, etc.). You may also impose fines on undertakings which violate the antitrust rules. The main rules on procedures are set out in The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. ยง151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin etc. If you investigate this you shall find that abuse of the dominant position in the market and restricting competion by vertical agreements between the big corporations is a fact, not only a personal perception. Algorithms are helping undermine even destroy the fabric of democracy in different parts of the world.
A great deal of harm has been done by concealing the social filters that select which information we see in our networks. But there are more powerful algorithms to be reckoned with that will be the ultimate arbiter of outcomes in the future. It effects democracy and business. That's why it should be a high priority. The computer code that let’s people find you on Facebook and information to be found or presented in your news feed is called algorithm. In Facebook’s news feed and Google’s search results, algorithms play an important role in our knowledge and democracy. How algorithms can help us understand the world better, or distort our perceptions of reality. “When we talk about democracy, we’re really talking about the marketplace of ideas, and whether your idea can surface in a marketplace of ideas.” And common knowdlegde is defined by something everyone knows, Google, Facebook and Twiitter are shaping our reality in a bad way. If you are allowed to express an idea or finding but no one can see it, it is almost the same as, where you’re not allowed to express certain kind of political ideas. In the 20th century, the marketplace of ideas was the professional press, complete with gatekeepers to those ideas in the form of journalists. “You either had to be an editor, or had to have access to an editor, or once television came along you had to have access to the means of production,” a lot of money or government connections. “If you look at the research on how people get their news now: you often hear this phrase: ‘If news is important, news will find me’. But behind that statement is something really important: if news is going to find you, it’s going to find you because of an algorithm.” with a political bias. This was the basis: the step-by-step calculations whirring away in the background on Facebook, Google and big news websites. We are controlled! Even WhatsApp deformed my voice and the voice of the person who I spoke to. I didn't recognise that person! “When we think about these algorithm. We have to think about the power that they encode. Effectively it’s power to draw people’s attention,” and even to hide the truth. These algorithms’ embedded power is that they can draw attention, and they can attain attention, and they don’t exactly say what they have programmed to be removed or to be put first.” The often-held notion that these algorithms are neutral is wrong, the engineers have to make a number of choices when building algorithms, whether it’s the EdgeRank system that defines what stories are displayed in people’s Facebook news feeds or Google Suggest that completes your words. They are not neutral. THERE IS NO NET NEUTRALITY. There should be net neutrality.
The FCC's mission, specified in Section One of the Communications Act of 1934 and amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) is to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges." The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created "for the purpose of the national defense" and "for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications."[6] Consistent with the objectives of the Act as well as the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the FCC has identified six goals in its 2006–2011 Strategic Plan. These are: Broadband "All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services." Competition "Competition in the provision of communication services, both domestically and overseas, supports the Nation's economy. The competitive framework for communications services should foster innovation and offer consumers reliable, meaningful choice in affordable services." Spectrum "Efficient and effective use of non-federal spectrum domestically and internationally promotes the growth and rapid development of innovative and efficient communication technologies and services." Media "The Nation's media regulations must promote competition and diversity and facilitate the transition to digital modes of delivery." Public Safety and Homeland Security "Communications during emergencies and crisis must be available for public safety, health, defense, and emergency personnel, as well as all consumers in need. The Nation's critical communications infrastructure must be reliable, interoperable, redundant, and rapidly restorable." Net Neutrality In 2005, the FCC formally established the following principles: To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; Consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. However, broadband providers were permitted to engage in "reasonable network management." [citation needed] On August 1, 2008 the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its highspeed Internet service from using file-sharing software. The FCC imposed no fine, but required Comcast to end such blocking in 2008. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that "We are preserving the open character of the Internet" and "We are saying that network operators can't block people from getting access to any content and any applications." Martin's successor, Julius Genachowski has maintained that the FCC has no plans to regulate the internet, saying: "I've been clear repeatedly that we're not going to regulate the
Internet."[45] The Comcast case highlighted broader issues of whether new legislation is needed to force Internet providers to maintain net neutrality, i.e. treat all uses of their networks equally. The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used for downloading larger files.[46] In December 2010, the FCC revised the principles from the original Internet policy statement and adopted the Open Internet Order consisting of three rules [47] regarding the Internet: Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services; No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and No unreasonable discrimination. After setbacks in court, in April 2014 the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding a path forward for The Open Internet Order. On November 10, 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[48][49][50] On February 26, 2015, the FCC ruled in favor of net neutrality by applying Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 and Section 706 of the Telecommunications act of 1996 to the Internet.[51][52][53] The rules prompted debate about the applicability of First Amendment protections to Internet service providers and edge providers. Republican Commissioner Ajit Pai said the Open Internet Order "posed a special danger" to "First Amendment speech, freedom of expression, [and] even freedom of association."[54] Democratic member and thenChairman Tom Wheeler said in response that the rules were "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 concept."[55] According a Washington Post poll, 81% of Americans supported net neutrality in 2014. According to the poll, 81% of Democrats and 85% of Republicans said they opposed fast lanes.[56] On March 12, 2015, the FCC released the specific details of the net neutrality rules. [57][58] [59] On April 13, 2015, the FCC published the final rule on its new "Net Neutrality" regulations.[60][61] On April 27, 2017, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that would revise the legal foundation for the agency's Open Internet regulations. The NPRM will be voted on at the May 18th Open Meeting. [62]
NSA wiretapping[edit] When it emerged in 2006 that AT&T, BellSouth and Verizon may have broken U.S. laws by aiding the National Security Agency in possible illegal wiretapping of its customers, Congressional representatives called for an FCC investigation into whether or not those companies broke the law. The FCC declined to investigate, however, claiming that it could not investigate due to the classified nature of the program– a move that provoked the criticism of members of Congress. "Today the watchdog agency that oversees the country's telecommunications industry refused to investigate the nation's largest phone companies' reported disclosure of phone records to the NSA," said Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) in response to the decision. "The FCC, which oversees the protection of consumer privacy under the Communications Act of 1934, has taken a pass at investigating what is estimated to be the nation's largest violation of consumer privacy ever to occur. If the oversight body that monitors our nation's communications is stepping aside then Congress must step in