Phyllis Beveridge Nissila
My oldest brother, Gregory J. Beveridge, who is a broadcast engineer and telecommunications expert, forwarded the following excerpt from “Law360 Technology”.
“See below” was all he prefaced this with.
The D.C. Circuit upheld the Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules Tuesday in a widely anticipated decision that capped off months of post-oral argument uncertainty and saw the agency successfully defend its decision to alter Internet regulation…” (June 14th, 2016)
Even for his “low tech” younger sister, Greg’s two-word directive was enough for me to read the excerpt and to comprehend the import—for him, for me, and for everyone who understands that the ringing sound you may now hear might be the death knell for our U.S. Constitution, First Amendment right of free speech, not to mention the ramifications worldwide as the anti-free speech noose tightens around the globe.
Greg is not a man of few words, but after his decades of deep involvement in the telecommunications industry including fifteen patents, serving as an “expert witness” in front of Congress on telecommunications technology, and more, his comment, “See below” said it all.
At least to me.
In a previous post, “On Internet Takeover: Is Norway the Canary in the (Broadcast) Coal Mine?” from April 15, 2015 that Greg reviewed for technical accuracy, I gave an observer’s view of a landmark event he told me about occurring in Norway, the first country “planning to shut down its FM band in favor of digital-only radio.” Because of previous and ongoing conversations my brother and I had had, I realized that nugget of little known news was a kind of international watershed moment regarding this issue.
A small, first step into the darkness…
BUT what does that have to do with free speech? The U.S.? The D.C. Court’s ruling last Tuesday? The over-riding of our Constitutional rights?
In that post, here is a brief explanation: “And on this side of the pond, many believe that unless the people of the United States of America stand up for our First Amendment right to freedom of speech-over-the-air, we might see the re-imposition of a FCC censorship program known as the ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ ‘a blatant attempt to effectively muzzle nascent talk radio programs of all politically-incorrect persuasions, that was struck down some two-plus decades ago.’”
Which is what just happened Tuesday. The “re-imposition,” that is. By the FCC enabled by the DC Circuit.
At least, many believe it was the ribbon-cutting event (or should I say, switch-throwing?).
FREE MARKET PUBLIC UTILITY
The Canary post also details the particulars of how the takeover would take place, technologically speaking. Greg helped explain what is at stake via the DC Court’s enablement of the FCC to be reclassified as a “public utility/service” (not just for emergency transmissions) thus, subject to many more federal regulations–and control–by the government, and what this means when we turn on our electronic devices.
And we all know what happens when a control-hungry government starts adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing regulations–mostly, multiplying.
When that happens, the cinch tightens around freedoms of innovation and exploration.
Depending upon, of course who is the “squeezer” and who are the “squeeze-ees”.
Depending also upon the motives: more, or less, government control.
But how to know what is really going on, I mean, it sounds like a good thing, right? Neutral and all…?
Besides investigating what the experts have to say, here is another way to discern what is really going on.
I’m a word person. I teach the language and its nuances and I write, hopefully, credibly and sufficiently, trying to practice what I preach. I see all kinds of semantic manipulation in print around “hard sell” items (and often use them as examples for fallacies, bias, etc.). This writing skill can be useful and good, benign–or, to the reason I cite it here, used to change the subject in order to trick the reader and the hearer…
To get non-technologically savvy people (most of us) on board the new “regulations” it is essential to “sell” the controversial program carefully. Takes some word-smithing, for starters. The use of euphemisms helps.
This kind of sales pitch is an illustration: “This is not an Internet takeover; it’s an assurance that the Internet will be neutral, fair, and cost-saving!”
Thought and word control can be tricky, but in the case of high-end technology, not too tricky for “Net Neutrality” salesmen and saleswomen because most of us do not understand such a complex, ever-changing industry.
We do, however, comprehend such terms as neutral, fair, and cost-saving. At least, we understand what they mean in their original and reassuring senses, NOT necessarily as now-employed in their new, attention-diverting and euphemistic roles.
And thus is born–and perpetuated–a perfect trifecta of ruse, a three-part win over the minds of the masses.
Then the meme parade begins featuring the euphemisms (aided and abetted by a controlled social media) as we flip past our SM alerts looking for a cheap thrill, a fix for boredom, something to feed a new phenomenon, “social media addiction,” and/or something to assuage the pain of the real news about the mayhem ratcheting up at break-neck speed all around the world.
That is, while the real news is yet able to be broadcast in these perhaps few remaining months of a free press so that all, not just the permitted, good, bad, beautiful, and ugly news gets out.
On the “ugly”–not to worry, though.
Free market competition has a way of reducing that sort.
(Anybody remember “Air America?”)
Oh, one more potent euphemism (that has been effectively spun to the bad): “conspiracy theorists.”
Why is this one powerful?
Because most people do not stop, as busy as they are, to realize that a conspiracy is no longer a conspiracy when there is irrefutable proof provided by experts, critical thinkers, and citizen videos and audios recorded in real time and on the scene by “free market” technological innovations.
See the problem if you want to control the
(And in the halls of the powers-that-be I can only imagine the following exchange [cue the Jaws theme]:
Dang! Here’s ANOTHER expose with original footage and documentation…
But how do we control the growing number of citizen observers, critical thinkers, experts, and analysts “in real time”?
Oh, yeah! I’ve GOT it! “Sell” the control of the Internet using the terms “fairness,” “neutral,” and “cost saving”.
[Applause all around.]
Now, word-smiths, go out and divert and conquer!).
So, what does an ordinary citizen do?
Prepare for going dark, as it were, here in the U.S., too. Prepare for the day, maybe sooner than we think, when our right to free speech is taken over by the Ministry of Spin.
Here are a couple of suggestions from this observer—and her brother:
- Download or secure video, audio, and print resources that might be of use and importance. A good initial printout would be the U.S. Bill of Rights.
- Get hold of a short wave radio, preferably with HAM radio reception capability, if you can. Some are also getting a HAM radio operator broadcast license.
- Understand that a segment or two of the population may not be persuadable for various reasons. At a certain point, but don’t let yourself get too frustrated, reel your energy back in to things you can do: continue educating yourself, align with like-minded family, friends and neighbors and proceed as per your opportunities. I like to write, for example. My brother researches and stays abreast of the news. Others run for local, state, and federal offices…while there is still time. Many in their prayer closets intercede for the nation as never before…
But perhaps most importantly, given another mutual interest of my brother’s and mine, that is, the import of the prophetic ramifications of government and global takeovers, “Keep your spiritual bags packed.”
UPDATE 6/21/16 For an example of what can happen when the government-by-regulation takes it upon themselves (with a little help wielded by a complicit legal entity to make it seem okay and official) to control private industry, take the recent attempt to control/spin/change/edit/redact (All of the Above) the real-time messages texted and phoned-in by the Orlando nightclub murderer for his murder spree.
For why I don’t say “shooter,” see below.
Most readers who are paying attention are by now likely aware of the DOJ’s changing the murderer’s own words by which he aligned himself square-on with his ties to a known terrorist religious affiliation that believes it is Allah’s will that such murdering takes place. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch actually ordered that his own words be changed from “Allah” to “God.”
But, oops, she was a little ahead of herself, that is, a little ahead of the rest of the work she and her cohorts need to do to control and change the truth via controlling the media such as the Internet. It can be credibly argued that she and the rest already effectively own the mainstream media; however, I think it can also be argued that most people, any more, get their news largely from the Internet.
Thus Ms. Lynch had to fix that little oversight, and redact the redactions, as it were, so that we NOW know what the murderer REALLY said about himself and his terrorist ties. Of course, the Ministry of Newspeak spun their actions to indicate they were REALLY doing it for our own good…
She was ahead of herself because citizens still have that big and powerful vehicle of free-speech called the Internet on which, now, anyone can record and tell the truth in real time…and we still have the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) at our disposal, as cumbersome and time-taking as it is.
Had the re-classification of the Internet to a public utility (subject to government regulation) just been completely secured last week, not just begun, it would have been so much easier for her…and the rest of them…
ON WHY I SAY MURDERER AND NOT SHOOTER.
No matter if the criminal shot, axed, strangled, beat, drowned, or used some other method to kill the nightclub patrons, the result is the same: he did it.
HE, not the gun with which he shot them.
Why do I belabour this point?
I don’t know about you, but the first time the press began to consistently use the term “shooter” to describe a killer (whereas they don’t tend to use, for example, “axe-wielder,” or “rope-wielder”) I thought, that’s odd. Why define the act by the weapon used instead of by the criminal who used it, as it was usually defined in days past?
Of course it didn’t take long to connect the dots to the power of the language to persuade.
Use “shooter” and keep the negative consequences of guns in the news and in the minds of the populace so that the powers that be can keep ginning up those nasty guns as the cause of all the mayhem–not those who use the guns (or the ropes or the knives, or the…).
Then push for more gun control.
Maybe later the push for “axe control,” “strangle-rope control,” and so on, will become the cause celebre, as in, “Axer hacks nine to death in mall,” or, “Rope-strangler chokes six dead…”
Most people don’t take the time to unpack the language or the spin. HOWEVER, most people have a “gut reaction” to such changes/alterations/spins….
Pay attention to your “gut”…
Gregory J. Beveridge
Mr. Beveridge is a telecommunications senior executive with 40 years of industry experience in broadcast engineering, public switched telephony, cable television and hosted applications service provider businesses. Formerly the President of Beveridge Consulting, Inc., Mr. Beveridge also previously served as Vice President for Digital Transport and Technical Operations with AuraServ Communications, Vice President – Technology Strategy for MediaOne (now Comcast), and Chief of Technology for U S West International, Inc. (now CenturyLink). He now holds fifteen U.S. and international patents. Mr. Beveridge sits on the Technical Committee and the Community Advisory Board of KBDI-TV, a public television station in Denver, Colorado. He is a member of the Society of Broadcast Engineers, a past member of IEEE, an Extra-class Amateur Radio operator (call sign WB7AHO), and a past board member of Telenet Flanders in Belgium. Mr. Beveridge graduated cum laude with a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronic Engineering Technology from Arizona State University.