‘Net neutrality’ sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

Robert M. McDowell
Wall St Journal

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government’s reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called “net neutrality” have been calling for strong regulation of broadband “on-ramps” to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

Nothing is broken and needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Information War

FCC Julius Genachowski Image:J.D. Lasica/Wired

Ryan Singel
Wired

The federal government’s new internet fairness rules — aimed at preventing the nation’s cable and DSL internet service providers from meddling with the open, free-wheeling nature of the internet — were met with loud criticism Monday night from all sides of the political spectrum.

Many Republicans, including FCC commissioner Robert McDowell, blasted the new rules as an interventionist over-reach by an activist federal regulator intent on asserting control over the internet. Meanwhile, Democrats, including Sen. Al Franken from Minnesota, along with public interest and free speech groups, slammed the rules as woefully inadquate to protect the public from the privations of an industry keen on turning the internet into a cyber-version of cable TV, with tiers and premium packages affordable by the wealthy.

There was one group, however, that seemed pleased by the new rules: the nation’s cable and telecommunications companies, which have been making the rounds in recent weeks signaling their support for Chairman Julius Genachowski’s compromise deal.

And of course, the new rules will allow President Obama to say that he fulfilled a key campaign pledge — net neutrality — when the plan’s critics say he has done nothing of the sort, and in fact only consigned the issue to more lawsuits and uncertainty. The long-awaited move comes after five years of running battles between the nation’s telecoms, public interest groups and Silicon Valley firms over how best to keep the internet open to innovation.

Come Tuesday afternoon, following what will likely be a 3-2 party line vote at the FCC, the new rules of the road will resemble the old rules in many respects — just with less legal authority, and a massive new loophole. For the first time, federal policy would allow for so-called reasonable “paid prioritization,” which critics argue is the first step toward cleaving out high-speed, premium fast-lanes from the “public internet.” This could jeopardize internet innovation by disincentivising entrepreneurial activity on the free, or regular, internet.

The new policy appeared to cross a key hurdle Monday when Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said he would support it.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Information War

Timothy Karr
The Huffington Post

Late Monday, a majority of the FCC’s commissioners indicated that they’re going to vote with Chairman Julius Genachowski for a toothless Net Neutrality rule.

According to all reports, the rule, which will be voted on during tomorrow’s FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet.

The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it’s become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.

Welcome to AT&T’s Internet
For the first time in history of telecommunications law the FCC has given its stamp of approval to online discrimination.

Instead of a rule to protect Internet users’ freedom to choose, the Commission has opened the door for broadband payola – letting phone and cable companies charge steep tolls to favor the content and services of a select group of corporate partners, relegating everyone else to the cyber-equivalent of a winding dirt road.

Instead of protecting openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the Commission has exempted the mobile Internet from Net Neutrality protections. This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of mobile Internet access, allowing them to favor their own applications while blocking, degrading or de-prioritizing others.

Instead of re-establishing the FCC’s authority to act as a consumer watchdog over the Internet, it places the agency’s authority on a shaky and indefensible legal footing — giving ultimate control over the Internet to a small handful of carriers.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Globalists Can Win Cyber War, But Not Information War

As all eyes turn to the Federal Communications Commission as they prepare to vote on the net neutrality proposal, a leaked presentation outlines how cellular carriers can roll out a fee-based tiered Internet.

S.T. Karnick
The American Culture

A federal appeals court struck a blow against the desire of the Federal Communications Commission to enforce net neutrality rules on the Internet, ruling the FCC must first get Congress to approve such a sweeping expansion of its regulatory power.

The decision made it clear that the FCC has no authority to force Comcast to stop managing its broadband network as it sees fit—in this case by throttling back the speed of a relative handful of “bandwidth hogs” who use bitTorrent programs to share enormous files. Comcast said it throttled the “hogs” to ensure speedy service for the majority of its customers in 2007, but no longer does so.

The United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia handed down the 36-page decision on April 6. Commonly referred to as Comcast v. FCC, the ruling stated that the FCC’s “ancillary authority” over the broadcast and cable industries “is not the equivalent of untrammeled freedom to regulate activities” on the Internet, too.

Read Full Article

Rasmussen Reports

American voters believe free market competition will protect Internet users more than government regulation and fear that regulation will be used to push a political agenda.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 21% of Likely U.S. Voters want the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to regulate the Internet as it does radio and television. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed to such regulation, and 25% are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

The survey was conducted shortly after the FCC decided on a party line vote to impose so-called “net neutrality” regulations on the Internet world. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly oppose FCC regulation of the Internet, while Democrats are more evenly divided. Those who use the Internet most are most opposed to FCC regulations.

By a 52% to 27% margin, voters believe that more free market competition is better than more regulation for protecting Internet users. Republicans and unaffiliated voters overwhelmingly share this view, but a plurality of Democrats (46%) think more regulation is the better approach.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe that the FCC would use its regulatory authority to promote a political agenda. Half that number (28%) disagree and believe the commission would regulate in an unbiased manner. The partisan divide is the same on this question as the others. A plurality of Democrats sees an unbiased regulatory approach, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters fear a political agenda.

Read Full Article

InfoWars

RELATED ARTICLES:
DHS Seizes Websites for Linking to Copyrighted Material
Google Seeks to Weaken Ranking of ‘Content Farm’ Websites

© AFP/File YOSHIKAZU TSUNO

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The White House urged Congress on Wednesday to approve a “consumer privacy bill of rights” that would regulate the collection of personal data on the Internet.

Assistant Commerce Secretary Lawrence Strickling called for the legislation at a hearing on online privacy held by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

“The administration urges Congress to enact a ‘consumer privacy bill of rights’ to provide baseline consumer data privacy protections,” he said.

Strickling said authority to enforce privacy protections should be given to the Federal Trade Commission, which is advocating a “Do Not Track” mechanism that would allow Web users to opt out of having their activities monitored.

“The large-scale collection, analysis, and storage of personal information is becoming more central to the Internet economy,” said Strickling the White House’s top communications policy advisor.

“These activities help to make the online economy more efficient and companies more responsive to their customer needs,” he said.

“We think we can get to a regime that will greatly improve privacy for consumers and still meet the needs of businesses who want to continue to see the growth of the Internet,” he said.

The Center for Democracy & Technology welcomed the Obama administration’s call for online privacy legislation.

“This is a historic announcement, marking the first time the White House has called for a baseline consumer privacy bill,” CDT president Leslie Harris said.

© AFP — Published at Activist Post with license

Nicholas Ballasy
CNS News

Federal Communications Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, an Obama appointee, told CNSNews.com that the FCC does not want to regulate Internet content but it does want to regulate the Internet’s “on/off ramps.”

At the National Association of Broadcasters Service Awards on Monday, CNSNews.com asked Clyburn to what extent the federal government should regulate the Internet.

“When we talk about the Internet and the interaction, we are strictly talking about what we call the on/off ramps,” she said. “We are not talking about content. So we are insuring, what we are attempting to do at the FCC is ensure that every person has an equal engagement, that every single individual when they pay their money or when they sign on line, that they have an equal engagement.

Read Full Article

April Glaser
EFF

Network neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data that travels over their networks equally—is a principle that EFF strongly supports. However, the power to enforce equal treatment on the Internet can easily become the power to control the Internet in less beneficent ways. Some people have condemned last week’s court decision to reject the bulk of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Open Internet Order as a threat to Internet innovation and openness. Others hailed it as a victory against dangerous government regulation of the Internet. Paradoxically, there is a lot of truth to both of these claims.

Violations of network neutrality are a real and serious problem: in recent years we have seen dozens of ISPs in the U.S. and around the world interfere with and discriminate against traffic on their networks in ways that threaten the innovative fabric of the Internet.

At the same time, we’ve long doubted that the FCC had the authority to issue the Open Internet rules in the first place, and we worried that the rules would lead to the FCC gaining broad control over the Internet. The FCC in particular has a poor track record of regulating our communications services. We are not confident that Internet users can trust the FCC, or any government agency, with open-ended regulatory authority of the Internet.

Look at what happened with radio and television. Though it’s charged to regulate our media landscape in the best interest of the public, the FCC opened the doors to unforeseen levels of media consolidation. That consolidation has contributed to the gutting of newsrooms and a steep decline in diversity of viewpoints and local voices on the air, as independent broadcasters across the country shut down, unable to compete with big media monopolies. One of the best protections for the open Internet is probably more competition among ISPs, but the FCC’s history doesn’t leave us hopeful that it is the right entity to help create and defend a competitive Internet marketplace.

And the FCC sometimes makes rules that narrow our freedom to communicate and innovate, like the Broadcast Flag Rule—the bit of DRM that broadcasters wanted to use to prevent the home recording of television—which EFF fought so hard to defeat in 2007.

So while we are hesitant to task any government agency with the job of regulating the Internet, we aren’t thrilled about giving that power to the FCC.

The many faces of network discrimination

However this plays out, we think it’s important that the public understands what network discrimination actually looks like. The recent debate about network neutrality has involved a lot of speculation and “what-if” hypotheticals. This is strange because we have a clear, documented history of the kinds of non-neutral, discriminatory practices that ISPs have actually deployed in recent years. Here are a few ways ISPs have throttled or blocked content in the past. We stand firm in our opposition to this kind of behavior:

• 
  Packet forgery: in 2007 Comcast was caught interfering with their customers’ use of BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer file sharing;


• Discriminatory traffic shaping that prioritizes some protocols over others: a Canadian ISPslowed down all encrypted file transfers for five years;


• Prohibitions on tethering: the FCC fined Verizon for charging consumers for using their phone as a mobile hotspot;


• Overreaching clauses in ISP terms of service, such as prohibitions on sharing your home Wi-Fi network;


• Hindering innovation with “fast lane” discrimination that allows wireless customers without data plans to access certain sites but not the whole Internet;


• Hijacking and interference with DNS, search engines, HTTP transmission, and other basic Internet functionality to inject ads and raise revenue from affiliate marketing schemes, from companies like Paxfire, FairEagle, and others.

Individually and collectively, these practices pose a dire threat to the engine of innovation that has allowed hackers, startup companies, and kids in their college dorm rooms to make the Internet that we know and love today.

How can we prevent these practices and ensure neutrality over our networks? The FCC tried, and while the agency was somewhat successful in putting the brakes on the kind of network discrimination ISPs would rather see[1], the FCC used poor legal reasoning to enact weak rules.

What was wrong with the FCC’s network neutrality approach

The Open Internet rules of 2010 that were rejected by the court last week were deeply flawed and confirmed our fears about heavy-handed Internet regulation. The FCC initially claimed that it had “ancillary” authority under the 1996 Telecommunications Act to enact the Open Internet rules. That means that although the FCC did not have explicit authority from Congress to issue network neutrality rules, especially after classifying Internet service as an “information service” and not a telephone-like “common carrier” in 2002, they still professed a broad authority to regulate the Internet.

That claim of ancillary jurisdiction, if accepted, would have given the FCC pretty much boundless clearance to regulate the Internet, and to claim other ancillary powers in the future. Even if you happen to like the FCC’s current goals, who’s to say we will still like whatever goals the agency has next year and the year after that?

We had serious issues with the initial Open Internet Order, as we explained in our comments to the FCC. For one, the Order allowed ISPs free rein to discriminate as long as it was part of “reasonable efforts to… address copyright infringement.” This broad language could lead to more bogus copyright policing from the ISPs. We’ve already seen companies use inaccurate filters to block non-infringing fair use content online, a practice we continue to fight.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

The FCC’s rules also had troubling exceptions for law enforcement, permitting ISPs to engage in voluntary, non-neutral network management practices to fulfill any law enforcement requests. We opposed this exception when the rules were being considered, but the FCC did not adopt our recommendations. And by now we all know how overbroad law enforcement exceptions to gather user data can be. If you have any doubt, pick up a newspaper and read about how the U.S. government unconstitutionally collaborates with Internet companies for law enforcement purposes.

There are no easy solutions

In light of these threats it is tempting to reach for easy solutions. But handing the problem to a government agency with strong industry ties and poor mechanisms for public accountability to fix the very real problem of network neutrality is unsatisfying. There’s a real danger that we would just be creating more problems than we’d solve.

One alternative that would go a long way would be to foster a genuinely competitive market for Internet access. If subscribers and customers had adequate information about their options and could vote with their feet, ISPs would have strong incentives to treat all netowrk traffic fairly. The court agreed with us on this point:

“a broadband provider like Comcast would be unable to threaten Netflix that it would slow Netflix traffic if all Comcast subscribers would then immediately switch to a competing broadband provider.”

Another scenario would be for Congress to step in and pass network neutrality legislation that outlines what the ISPs are not allowed to do. But fighting giant mega-corporations like AT&T and Verizon (and their army of lobbyists) in Congress promises to be a tough battle.

Yet another option: empower subscribers to not just test their ISP but challenge it in court if they detect harmful non-neutral practices. That gives all of us the chance to be watchdogs of the public interest but it, too, is likely to face powerful ISP opposition.

These are not the only options. Internet users should be wary of any suggestion that there is an easy path to network neutrality. It’s a hard problem, and building solutions to resolve it is going to remain challenging. But here is one guiding principle: any effort to defend net neutrality should use the lightest touch possible, encourage a competitive marketplace, and focus on preventing discriminatory conduct by ISPs, rather than issuing broad mandatory obligations that are vulnerable to perverse consequences and likely to be outdated as soon as they take effect.

EFF is watching this issue closely, and we’ll continue to share our thoughts on how best to defend the free and open Internet on which we all depend.

By Truthstream Media

Did you hear FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s weird speech after Net Neutrality passed? Did you see this picture of the commission members holding hands? The lobbyist and fervid (yes, fervid) Obama supporter running things over there is acting like he just walked on the moon while single-handedly saving everyone from a giant asteroid and cancer on the same day, all because a “majority” of three out of a panel of five unelected bureaucrats have closed the final frontier of the Internet, thus opening it up to more monopolies, price hikes, and worse, government regulation and censorship. Yay oligarchical collectivism!

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTKWNyB4-9U]
Visit TruthstreamMedia.com

By Phil D. Coffers

“Security Experts Warn Congress That the Internet of Things Could Kill People…”

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai and his family have already received death threats because he voted to end “Net Neutrality.”

This is unfortunate.  What is equally unfortunate is that he also supports a program that has

1. Security experts completely freaking out and speaking out


2. Demonstrated an approximately 75% failure rate


3. Federal dollars continue to be spent to install and utilize it despite all the problems already associated with it


4. Millions have already been hacked because of it

This program is called “The Internet of Things (IoT).”

“Although government and industry promote the IoT as the panacea for all ills, the IoT itself, creates a plethora of problems.”  http://whatis5g.info/

And yes there have already been problems: 

• “Nearly 75% Internet of Things Projects are Failing”
  


• “University hacked by its own vending machines: How IoT almost took entire campus offline”


• “This Teen Hacked 150,000 Printers to Show How the Internet of Things Is Shit”


• “Security Experts Warn Congress That the Internet of Things Could Kill People. Poorly secured webcams and other Internet-connected devices are already being used as tools for cyberattacks. Can the government prevent this from becoming a catastrophic problem?”


• “If we must have an IoT bog roll holder, can we at least make it secure? It’s the internet of sh*tty things, says Intel Security’s Raj Samani”


• 
  “In a relatively short time, we’ve taken a system built to resist destruction by nuclear weapons and made it vulnerable to toasters.” Jeff Jarmoc, Senior Security Researcher, Dell Secure Works Counter Threat Unit
  


• “The Internet of Things Will Turn Large-Scale Hacks into Real World Disasters”


• “What happens when dishwashers attack the network?”


• “IoT Growing Faster Than the Ability to Defend It”


• “How the Internet of Things will affect security & privacy”


• “Internet of Things security: What happens when every device is smart and you don’t even know it?”


• “When IoT devices are everywhere, the security headaches just get worse.”


• “You know IoT security is bad when libertarians call for strict regulation, ‘When the internet crashes into the real world and people get killed’ you’ll be sorry”


• “The Internet of Things: What Could Go Wrong”


• 
  “New HNS IoT Botnet Has Already Amassed 14K Bots” –  A new botnet is growing around the world, feeding off unsecured IoT devices, mainly IP cameras, and getting ready to do some harm.


• “Why it’s critical enterprises address the IoT security blind spot”


• 
  “IOT: IoT and the law of unintended consequences”:  Strava’s fitness app usage heatmap accidentally reveals military deployments — and it won’t be the last time good IoT intentions lead to unanticipated problems. Strava is only the beginning


• “Developing an IoT Nightmare: My Smart Fork Ate My Data”


• “Tech Expert: IoT Growth Requires Continued Consumer Vigilance in 2018”


• “IoT devices a focus of cyber attacks”


• “Ransomware Forecast 2018: Expect Cars, Homes, Medical Equipment and Wearables to be Targeted”


• 
  “Cyber-attacks are a top three risk to society, alongside natural disaster and extreme weather”  (A report has warned that ransomware, Internet of Things hacks, and industrial attacks could be almost as big a problem as natural disasters and extreme weather.)


• “IOT The Internet of Things: What Could Go Wrong”


• “IoT for its own sake is causing needless security headaches”

IoT is a money pit.  With an already approx. 75% failure rate, there will always be people who need to be paid to clean up its messes.  Even scarier – according to many telecom security experts, IoT puts us all in danger of being hacked by terrorists who could actually shut down the whole country for an indefinite period of time.

Just when you thought putting IoT everywhere couldn’t get any stupider: 

“Securing the largest IoT deployments in the world, the smart electric grid.” As the Internet of Things disrupts yet another industrial segment, industry experts are actively working to ensure the safety of the smart grid.

“I want to be hacked” said no person EVER. 

Unfortunately there’s even more bad news that’s been reported by several sources: 

Millions of 5G Small Cell Towers will be installed in front of homes and everywhere else in order to support IoT.

… 5G will include the higher millimeter wave frequencies never before used for public Internet and communications technology. These waves do not travel easily through buildings so 5G will require millions of new cell towers. The wireless telecom industry is aggressively seeking to outfit nearly every lamppost and utility post around the country with a wireless “small cell” antenna …

Don’t want this in your community or your neighborhood?  Too bad.  Here’s more about that:

10/3/2017:  New York Times:  “Why Does Verizon Care About Telephone Poles?”

Big Telecom and its allies in the White House have quietly carried out a campaign to secure rapid and cheap access to those poles, at taxpayer expense.

…telecommunications industry lobbyists spent more than $24.5 million in campaign contributions last year, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. At the federal level, Trump administration appointees to the Federal Communications Commission have publicly cheered these proposals, while releasing their own draft regulations to carry out additional industry-friendly rules nationally.”

These proposed regulations also supplant local communities’ authority with industry fiat to determine how to deploy telecommunications equipment over public streets, sidewalks and parks.

11/10/2017:  Huffington Post:  “The Trump-FCC-AT&T-Et Al. Plan: The Insidious ‘Wheel of Mis-Fortune‘”

Killing off net neutrality is just one of the many planned harms.

The Captured FCC is now planning on preempting the state laws and city ordinances….

There are multiple proceedings at the FCC currently relating to pole attachments and 5G to ‘streamline’ wireless deployment…

• 
  Replacement Utility Poles Pdf Txt Replacement Utility Poles Report and Order, WT Docket No. 17-79 “eliminating the requirement for historic preservation review where utility poles are replaced with substantially identical poles that can support antennas or other wireless communications equipment. This would eliminate unnecessary red tape and accelerate the buildout of wireless networks throughout our nation.”
  


• 
  5G Deployment: April 20, 2017 –Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Investment WT Docket No. 17-79 The Federal Communications Commission today opened a proceeding to identify and address unnecessary regulatory barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment.
  

This has many of us questioning if President Trump is actually aware of everything that is being sacrificed for IoT.  He seems very concerned about national security when it comes to building a giant wall at the Mexican border.  Meanwhile, IoT leaves us completely vulnerable to cyber attacks that could take down the whole country.

Secret $1.8 Million Cryptocurrency Script

As far as environmental safety from all of this new infrastructure, the FCC doesn’t need to care about that – let alone worry about being held accountable.  They haven’t been held accountable much before now:

1. In 2014, The Wall Street Journal published an article about how 1 in 10 U.S. cell tower grids were already in violation of the federal RadioFrequency (RF) safety rules. Also there weren’t enough FCC employees to correct the violations.  https://www.rfsafe.com/wsj-one-10-cell-phone-towers-violate-rf-radiation-safety-rule/
   


2. Wireless infrastructure that has already caught fire: http://www.electronicsilentspring.com/primers/cell-towers-cell-phones/cell-tower-fires-collapsing/
   

Also if you are a home owner, the closer any telecom infrastructure is to your property, the more your property value will be reduced.

Lastly, if you give a hoot about the environment and everything in it, you may want to grab a box of Kleenex:

More from http://whatis5g.info/:

Eight ways 5G and the IoT will harm humans, the environment, and the planet: 

• 
  Health – The robust and growing independent science shows harms to our health from microwave radiation


• 
  Privacy – The invasion of our privacy from the collection and mining of our digital data


• 
  Cyber Security -The fast growing and devastating cyber security risks


• 
  Environment – The harms to wildlife, particularly bees, butterflies and other pollinators


• 
  Energy – The huge energy consumption to produce and power a wireless Internet of Things


• 
  Brains and Humanity – The effects on our brains and humanity from humans increasingly inhabiting the cyber world


• 
  E-Waste – The astronomical e-waste that will be generated from connecting virtually every “thing” to the Internet


• 
  Conflict Minerals – 5G and the IoT will vastly grow our dependence on conflict minerals, which have brought about the death of close to 6 million people


• 
  Ethics — Ethical issues arising from the IoT.  New human rights laws are being being considered; how should humans relate to robots and AI?  The blurring of what was once a clear delineation between technology and humans”

If FCC Chair Ajit Pai is still concerned about how Americans feel about him and his family, he may want to reconsider his support of IoT.

If President Trump is still determined to protect the security of the country, he better finally nip this IoT nonsense in the bud.

Additional links:

• “Verizon’s Wireline Networks Diverted Billions for Wireless Deployments Instead of Wiring Municipalities, and Charged Phone Customers for It.”


• “Firefighters Don’t Want Cell Towers Near Their Stations, But 50+ Federal Bills Allow Cell Towers In Residential Yards and Pretty Much Everywhere Else”


• “5G – From Blankets to Bullets” 


• “Captured Agency:  How the FCC is dominated by the Industries It Presumably Regulates”


• 
  “The Book of Broken Promises, the $400B Broadband Scandal and Free the Internet”  
  


• “Cancer Expert Declares Cell Phone and Wireless Radiation as Carcinogenic to Humans”


• “Researchers Discover Two Major Flaws in the World’s Computers”


• “Cell phones & cancer: 8 dumb ways to boost possible risk”

Organizations:

• Citizens for Safe Technology (http://citizensforsafetechnology.org)


• Clear Light Ventures (http://www.clearlightventures.com)


• Environmental Health Trust (http://EHTrust.org)


• In Power Movement (http://InPowerMovement.com)


• National Toxic Encephalopathy Foundation (http://NTEF-USA.Org)


• We Are The Evidence) (https://wearetheevidence.org/)


• Whatis5G.Info