Chairman Genachowski. Can You Hear Us Now?

News last week that Google and Verizon's had reached consensus on a "legislative framework" for Net Neutrality was met with near universal disdain. Not only was the deal slammed by those inside and outside of Washington, it cratered from Wall Street to Silicon Valley.

The criticism didn't end with the Google-Verizon announcement. It extended to the F.C.C. and its indecisive chairman, Julius Genachowski, who seems content to take a back seat to industry as companies like AT&T, Verizon and Google carve up the Internet for themselves.

Here's a survey of prominent editorials that were written to prod Genachowski to get back in the front seat (alongside President Obama), salvage his reputation and champion public policy that protects the Internet's democratic nature against corporate overlords:

New York Times, August 14:

“The F.C.C. has been searching for a way to ensure an open Internet since April ... In May, the commission proposed to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, the right definition for this era. This process must be allowed to proceed.”

Boston Globe, August 17:

"But at the moment, the choice appears to be between having major industries self-regulate their Internet behavior, and having the FCC regulate it. Given that the Google-Verizon proposal seems helpful primarily to Google and Verizon at the expense of an open, innovation-friendly Internet, it’s time for the FCC to step in.”

USA Today, August 18:

"Although the Verizon-Google proposal looks all but dead for now, it's the latest example of how the Internet is under assault by those who would erect tollbooths on what is now a freeway. It is also clear evidence of how the FCC needs to set up clear rules to prevent Internet service providers and device makers from controlling what content people can access."

San Jose Mercury News, August 12:

"The FCC has the power to change the situation, and this deal provides a catalyst. It can swiftly assert its authority to ensure open, nondiscriminatory high-speed Internet access for Americans for both wireless and wired services. We urge the commission to deliver on the president's promise. Don't let these giant galoots shaking hands in the corner distract you -- you have a job to do."

Seattle Times, August 13:

"Google's mission is doing evil by consolidating its already too-large share of the digital advertising market and picking up the scraps left behind by Verizon and other Internet service providers.It is time the FCC not worry about the interests of huge corporations and focus on good public policy instead. Kill the Google-Verizon scheme before it gains traction."

San Francisco Chronicle, August 10:

"...the Google-Verizon pact isn't even close. They need to go back to the drawing board and get support from consumer groups and Internet users instead of just broadband carriers and web giants. The FCC also needs to step in immediately, by reclassifying broadband under a section of the telecommunications code that's subject to more scrutiny - and therefore less ability to discriminate."

DailyFinance, August 17:

"Genachowski now faces a choice, and his legacy as chair rests on his decision," says Karr. "Will he be true to Internet users and restore the agency's power to protect an open and accessible Internet? Or will he buckle to pressure from the phone and cable companies and look the other way as they undermine the Internet's democratic nature?"

Seattle Times, August 12:

"The FCC must assert its regulatory prerogatives over broadband and seek clarifying authority where the rules need to be sorted out. The FCC is not an agent of the industries it oversees. President Obama and Chairman Genochowski need to remember whom they work for. The customers will not forget."

Rep. Jay Inslee, Daily Kos. August 16:

"This affects us all, and we all need to join together to stop it. We need everyone involved if we're going to stand up to corporations the size of Verizon and Google. This is the FCC's job right now, and their lack of strong enforcement is unacceptable. The free-flow of ideas and innovation online is in danger."

GigaOM, August 12:

"...the vacuum we now have in regulating high-speed Internet access has led these companies to divide things up among themselves. The FCC is being disintermediated, in effect. The Commission needs to act quickly to protect entrepreneurs, innovation, and consumers."

Ars Technica, August 18:

"Given the possibility that Republicans could retake the House, it looks unlikely that Congress will take any action in support of neutrality for the next few years.Over at the FCC, Genachowski has been slow to act, and has said little on the Google/Verizon proposal. But net neutrality rules are now quite clearly up to him."

So, will the media deluge penetrate the eighth floor offices of the F.C.C chair? Will Genachowski proceed with his earlier pledge to restore the agency's authority, promote universal access and protect Net Neutrality? Or will he buckle to pressure from the phone and cable companies?

Either way, he is the swing vote for a majority of the commissioners. So the fate of the Internet -- as the most open and democratic media in history or as a closed network controlled by the few -- is now Genachowski's to determine.

Petition Chairman Genachowski to Do His Job

In 2009, President Obama nominated Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission with the understanding that he would make protecting Net Neutrality and promoting universal broadband access his top priorities.

But the chairman has failed to live up to expectations. His chief of staff is now brokering a deal with corporations that could take control of the Internet out of the hands of the people who use it and put it into the hands of powerful companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Google.

Does Genachowski really think that his job is pleasing powerful corporations — and not serving the public? Does he really want to let Google and Verizon break the open Internet so they can rebuild it as a gated community that only serves their bottom line?

The chairman’s actions (or lack of them) need to be held to a full public accounting. It’s time he explained why he seems to be caving to corporate special interest, betraying President Obama’s wishes, and ignoring the people he was put in office to serve:

Here are three things you can do:

• Retweet this act.ly petition to get Genachowski to commit to to demand that Genachowski accounts for his inaction.


• Answer these two questions to get the FCC to work for you and not AT&T.


• Learn more about getting involved in the fight to win Net Neutrality protections.

Net Neutrality is far from dead. This chairman just needs you to help him find his backbone so he can get back to work.

The Corporate Deal to Control Your Internet

--Originally published by The Seattle Times

Washington is under siege over Net Neutrality.

On the one side, elected officials and regulators have heard from millions of citizens demanding that Washington protect this rule that preserves the Internet’s open architecture.

On the other is a lobbying juggernaut that seeks to dismantle online openness so that phone and cable companies can rebuild the Internet as a gated community that serves their bottom line.

The problem is that policymakers in the middle aren’t holding the line for the public. They seem content simply to cut a deal between companies with the most political and economic clout.

If that doesn’t worry you, it should.

Because the deal they’re cutting is over who ultimately wins control of online information. And it goes without saying that you’re not in the running.

Google, Verizon, AT&T and others are reportedly nearing consensus on an agreement that could radically redesign the Web, allowing the carriers to build priority access lanes that admit only large companies that can pay the toll.

Where will that leave the rest of us? Stranded on the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road, with slower service, fewer choices and limited access.

Here’s the kicker. The FCC, the one agency tasked with protecting your interests online, may be poised to sign off on this plan. The agency is reportedly convening closed-door meetings with these companies to strike a deal that would let Internet providers implement a “paid prioritization” scheme.

According to the Washington Post, the FCC’s chief of staff wanted to "seize an opportunity" to agree on ways that carriers could “manage traffic” on their networks.

If recent articles by Amazon and AT&T execs are any indication, paid prioritization would allow carriers to ransom access to their customers to the highest bidder. AT&T’s top lobbyist, James Cicconi, wrote that such extortion was "not only necessary but in the best interest of consumers."

Don’t believe it.

The beauty of the open Internet is that anyone with an idea has a chance to take on giant corporations without first having to bribe network owners for access. Net Neutrality is the rule that guarantees this openness.

It’s because of Net Neutrality that great ideas like YouTube (which began in an office above a pizzeria in San Mateo) and Twitter (which grew out of a day-long brainstorming session among podcasters) blossomed to revolutionize how we connect and communicate with one another.

The paid prioritization deal under consideration wouldn’t allow for the next YouTube. And the next Twitter would likely never make it off the drawing board.

This scheme would let companies like Comcast and AT&T favor their own video services, voice applications and social media. It would let Verizon build a wide moat around its Internet fiefdom, insulating itself from competition by upstart innovators that want to show consumers how things can be done better and more cheaply.

Columbia Law Professor (and Free Press board chairman) Tim Wu has said that letting carriers choose favorites is “just too close to the Tony Soprano vision of networking: Use your position to make threats and extract payments. This is similar to the outlawed, but still common, ‘payola’ schemes in the radio world.”

"If allowing network discrimination means being stuck with AT&T's long-term vision of the Internet,” Wu concludes, “it won't be worth it."

That the FCC would consider such a deal marks a reversal on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s earlier pledge to safeguard the open Internet.

As recently as May, Genachowski proposed to reclassify broadband access under “Title II” of the Communications Act. This move would reverse dangerous Bush-era deregulations and give the agency the authority to protect Internet users from abuse by carriers.

In a letter to the FCC, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) Supported Genachowski’s plan to reclassify. Inslee gathered support for this move from more than 30 other members of Congress who told the FCC that reclassification is the way.

Rather than abandon it to cut secret deals with corporations, the Commission should use its power to protect Internet users and preserve the free flow of communications online.

Sen. Franken to the Netroots: Only You Can Stop the Corporate Takeover of Free Speech

Over the weekend, Sen. Al Franken (D.-Minn.) made the corporate takeover of our media, and the government's acquiescence to these corporations, frighteningly clear.

Franken told more than 2,000 bloggers and organizers attending the Netroots Nation conference in Las Vegas that our media system is at risk everywhere we turn -- from our free speech online to the growing power of companies who own a massive number of media outlets.

"Tonight I want to tell you that I believe Net Neutrality is the First Amendment issue of our time," Franken said during a closing keynote address to conference-goers. He went on to warn of the looming merger between cable giant Comcast and NBC-Universal, saying:

If no one stops them, how long do you think it will take before 4 or 5 mega-corporations effectively control the flow of information in America not only on television but online? If we don't protect Net Neutrality now ... how long do you think it will take before [they] start favoring its content over everyone else's?

With the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision giving unprecedented rights to corporations over individuals, Franken said these merged, powerful media conglomerates will have untold influence over our democracy:

And if Citizens United is allowed to stand, how long do you think it will take for these monoliths to buy enough elections so that they effectively have veto power over anything Congress tries to do to regulate them?

Franken pointed to a grim, but realistic picture of the future, where media companies decide what we watch and read on every media platform, and control the information we're able to create and disseminate.

Franken: "Help me fight this!"

If corporations takeover the Internet, the incredible Web-based political mobilization of the last 10 years would no longer exist. "And it's not just about politics," Franken added. "After all, the Internet is more than just a foundation of the community we progressives have built. It is an incredible source of innovation, a hot bed of creativity and unbelievable producer of jobs and wealth."


This value comes from the fact that Net Neutrality has created an equal playing field on the Internet, where anyone can connect, create and innovate. Without Net Neutrality, Franken said, "It would become just a 'series of tubes' through which money could flow into the pockets of private corporations."

And if the Comcast-NBC merger is approved, it will be the first "domino" in a series of other moves that will wrestle further control of the media from the people's hands. "If it falls, the rest will soon follow. It's almost too late to stop this from happening but not quite," he said.

The government now has a role to play. Congress can mitigate the influence of corporate money on our elections. The FCC can enact rules that would protect Net Neutrality and free speech online. And the FCC and Congress can block the NBC-Comcast merger, or in the very least, put strict conditions on the company to protect local and diverse journalism and information.

But Franken also said that the real action needs to come from the public.

"I can tell you first hand that the government, the White House and the FCC have been hearing plenty from corporations on the other side of these issues and not nearly enough from you," Franken said in closing. "If you want to protect the free flow of information in this country and all that depends on it, you have to help me fight this!"

50 Tweets for #NetNeutrality

Please pick, chose and retweet. Or tweet your own:

1. Historical view on how the Internet is "telecommunications" and why carriers shouldn't muck w/content http://twurl.nl/cyq3zw #NetNeutrality

2. Beck's war on the FCC (and Satan worshippers) Do his followers know they're just being "entertained?" http://twurl.nl/7pa11k #NetNeutrality

3. NYT: Right-wing talking points against #NetNeutrality are colorful but wrong. Oversight is needed: http://twurl.nl/n5w8kf

4. Cenk on how Fox News spins the astroturf line about #NetNeutralityas a "government takeover" http://twurl.nl/sr6kw5 #mediafail #p2

5. Comcast and Verizon execs agree: #FCC Title II plan won’t impact network investment http://twurl.nl/jcf7mm #NetNeutrality

6. James Rucker (@ColorofChange) explains how Web openness & access are intertwined and vital http://twurl.nl/jhcrga #NetNeutrality

7. Telco astroturf wouldn't spend $1.4m if they weren’t scared and they’re scared of 2mn people demanding #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/q0zvj4

8. "When all else fails, launch a scare campaign" http://twurl.nl/r0bdev #NetNeutrality #astroturf

9. Rep. Cliff Stearns introduces anti-#NetNeutrality bill. And his biggest corporate contributor is ... http://twurl.nl/ahpvp4

10. GigaOm: "For those who want to check out telecom. lobby & agenda in bill form, read Stearns’ leg." http://twurl.nl/2j0vh6 #NetNeutrality

11. Meanwhile at Fox, @GlennBeck links GE, NBC and @FreePress in vast conspiracy to take over the Web http://twurl.nl/phblpy #p2

12. Net Neutrality: The sum of all irrational fears: http://twurl.nl/sqhmsq #NetNeutrality #FCC

13. Would @GlennBeck hate #NetNeutrality as much, if he actually knew what it was? One can only wonder. http://twurl.nl/sqhmsq

14. Sen Dorgan & Com Copps: #FCC should move w/Internet speed to guarantee #NetNeutrality essential to dynamic democracy http://twurl.nl/wg0r56

15. Can you feel the power of the netroots. 2 million for #NetNeutrality. 250,000 for Title II www.savetheinternet.com

16. The nerdfighters chime in for #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/sjy5pb Geeks do rule!

17. AT&T (and friends) are still hard at work making up #NetNeutrality job loss figures http://twurl.nl/2b80t7 (via @mmasnick)

18. LA Times: FCC needs to step up regulation of Internet broadband service http://twurl.nl/y18x0d #NetNeutrality

19. Do the numbers add up? A closer look at controversial study that suggests #NetNeutrality costs jobs http://twurl.nl/8efd2a

20. Why media reform matters right now? Two must watch videoshttp://twurl.nl/vatda5 #NetNeutrality #SavetheNews

21. The Christian Coalition takes on Glenn Beck: #NetNeutrality is not some Marxist plot: http://twurl.nl/kw6vif #p2 #tcot

22. Extremists distort the #NetNeutrality issue as part of a secretly "coordinated attack" to censor people http://twurl.nl/mbdukn

23. Rep. Markey makes plea for reclassifying broadband; joins 250,000 other people who have urged the same #NetNeutrality http://bit.ly/cLAIBP

24. Washington Post: #NetNeutrality not a government plot. It's about ensuring your ISP can't limit what you do online http://twurl.nl/gz3wtg

25. Tim Wu: Net Neutrality is not dead. The FCC just needs to fix Bush-era mistakes: http://twurl.nl/jpsi7f #NetNeutrality #fcc

26. Watch the Pulitzer Center interview on how #NetNeutrality protects free speech and new journalism on the Web: http://twurl.nl/p86x4w

27. Join the ColorofChange action in support of #NetNeutrality http://www.colorofchange.org/opennet/ (pls sign and RT)

28. Why Net Neutrality is too important to leave up to ISPs (via @gigaom) #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/a3fbsg

29. Two venture capitalists on #NetNeutrality. If we lose it, we lose companies to invest in http://twurl.nl/ho4w2k http://twurl.nl/588uqm

30. Libraries understand that #NetNeutrality is essential: http://twurl.nl/keq8qh

31. AT&T sees Net access as scarce commodity to be rationed and filtered at spiraling costs http://twurl.nl/y3jrha #NetNeutrality

32. How Christian Coalition, MoveOn (and other strange bedfellows) helped Save the Internet together http://twurl.nl/gcvlg2 #NetNeutrality

33. #FCC Commissioner M. Clyburn not neutral on #NetNeutrality: http://twurl.nl/rmw64n

34. Experts warn of an ISP-controlled Internet w/o #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/kbfi7k

35. Harvard survey finds open access and #NetNeutrality vital to competition, universal access, low prices & high speeds http://twurl.nl/y3smg2

36. James Rucker of @colorofchange makes the case, again, for civil rights community to support #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/aczwj4

37. Close America's broadband gap? The phone and cable giants just say 'No' http://twurl.nl/8z3eow #NetNeutrality #DigitalDivide

38. Tea Party conservatives show support for #NetNeutrality: http://twurl.nl/ktexh4 Good to see right and left agreeing on some things.

39. Another telco talking point against #NetNeutrality (That it costs jobs) proven false http://twurl.nl/e28ncr

40. VIDEO: President Obama hits it out of the park for #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/g7rr4t (pls rt)

41. Why are some civil rights groups are on the wrong side of Net Neutrality? http://twurl.nl/ti6fd7 via @colorofchange #NetNeutrality

42. Why Media and Journalism Scholars Support Net Neutrality http://bit.ly/9SQu2E #NetNeutrality

43. #FCC Commissioner Clyburn says #NetNeutrality is in best interest of people of color – and all Americans: http://bit.ly/5gO8Kg

44. The conservative case for #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/71v1b1

45. Gamers warn of "balkanized" Internet. Call for #NetNeutrality protections: http://twurl.nl/xhdwtj

46. #NetNeutrality is a “matter of freedom of communication... This should be a basic right of citizenship” http://twurl.nl/oqib7g

47. NYU economists: #NetNeutrality fuels an open dynamic that “creates billions of dollars in value for American public” http://twurl.nl/b3hj2e

48. Making the case that #NetNeutrality fuels economic prosperity: http://twurl.nl/wkf3sj

49. I trust that the more than 30K gamers who've signed letters in support of #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/28xc6t Whom do you trust?

50. Rush gets #NetNeutrality. It's when Google and Obama take over your "Rush Limbaugh" search results. Yes sirree http://twurl.nl/ssg00z

Fox Goes Wall to Wall on Tiara-gate

The supposed controversy surrounding Sunday Night's crowning of Miss America was made to order for Fox News Channel. What better than a story that mixes the Network's love of beauty queens with its penchant for stirring up right-wing anger over issues like gay marriage and immigration.

Over the air and on the web, Fox devoted much of its coverage to questioning whether Miss Oklahoma was "sandbagged" by the liberal elite for her support of Arizona's anti-immigration law. Bumped from the front page of FoxNews.com: any mention of the BP oil spill in the Gulf, new information on the attempted Time Square bombing and coverage of the Supreme Court nomination.

The messages behind those news items are perhaps too nuanced for Roger Ailes, who seems to prefer his reporting wrapped in a political message and sprinkled with conspiracy.

It also helps to have women in bikinis.

Net Neutrality: The Sum of All Irrational Fears

Would the right’s lunatic fringe hate Net Neutrality so much, if they actually knew what it was? One can only wonder.

'They will control you' -- Glenn Beck on his radio show:

We’re not going to lose this country we are losing this country. I don’t think people understand how close we are today. Today the FCC is going to turn the Internet into a public utility, which means they have the power to control and regulate every bit of it.

They just were told by a court that they cannot have Net Neutrality. They said: “Fine we can’t do it that way. We will make it a public utility.” This will control every aspect of the Internet. And if you don’t think that people who praise Chavez and his revolution as an important democratic revolution will control every aspect of this Internet.

Mark my words. Listen to this carefully. It’s not going to happen today. It’s not going to happen in the next couple of weeks. It may not even happen in the next year. But it will happen. They’ve opened the door and your rights to speak out, put things out on the Internet, to express yourselves on a blog, to be able to make a political video … gone!

With this administration and, you know what, any progressive – even Republican – administration – they will limit your speech on the Internet and control it.If you think we could lose our rights, if you think we could lose our country, you’re mistaken. We are losing our country.

'A Neo-Marxist vision' -- Neil Stevens at RedState.com:

Part of Google’s drive has been in funding Free Press, a radical fringe group dedicated to the nationalization of all mass media in America.

Their neo-Marxist vision is to have people’s state commissars dictating all the news you read in the newspaper, watch on television, and see on the Internet. Obviously, they’ve been pushing hard for deem-and-pass “reclassification” of the Internet under FCC total control.

A 'Nucllear Option' -- Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity on Fox News:

With today’s announcement the FCC shows it is more interested in satisfying a left-wing political constituency than continuing sound policy...

Free Press put out a statement yesterday just minutes after the story leaked that the FCC would pursue reclassification. Remarkably, they openly stated that even the nuclear option of total regulatory control under a utility-type model is not enough for them, saying: “This is extremely welcome news. We reserve judgment, however, on whether the FCC has gone far enough.”

'Another Obama Takeover' -- House Republican Leader John Boehner on Twitter, twice:

“Obama FCC scheme would reclassify internet as a phone system in order to expand gov't power.”

“FCC plan to regulate internet will stifle innovation, kill jobs. Another gov't takeover by President Obama.”

Why Reform Right Now: Two Must Watch Videos

Two recent videos make a clear cut case for media reform in the digital age, and should be fixtures on the virtual shelf of anyone interested in the issue.

They help cut through the misinformation, astroturf and name calling being churned out by the phone and cable lobby.

If you're still on the fence about Net Neutrality, watch these.

The first, an April 12 presentation by Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig, walks us through the history of America's broadband downfall, laying blame at the feet of Bush-era FCC commissioners, who closed rank with companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to make a series of decisions that undermined users' control of our Internet experience.

The second, an interview between FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and PBS host Bill Moyers, looks to the future of American media and the vital role we all need to play to take back the Internet and keep communications as open and small "d" democratic as possible.

Let me know what you think:

A Man. A Plan. A Problem. The Internet.

Judging from the back-slapping and high fives over at the FCC, you’d think that America’s Internet was sailing smoothly into the future. Think again.

With much fanfare on Tuesday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski delivered the National Broadband Plan to Congress, saying it will help make Internet access faster and cheaper for everyone in the United States. Getting more people connected to high-speed Internet -- from the 65 percent currently online up to 90 percent of households by the year 2020 -- is Job One, according to Genachowski.

There are a lot of good things in the plan’s 376 pages, including pledges to reform the Universal Service Fund and to re-allocate spectrum for broadband. But the plan glosses over some of thorniest problems plaguing U.S. Internet users: high prices, slow speeds and a lack of choices among providers.

Internet access in America is held captive by powerful phone and cable interests. And regardless of what the laissez-faire editors at the Wall Street Journal think, doing nothing to protect people from getting ripped off is not an option.

Genachowski has said that affordable Internet access is the nation’s sure path to more jobs, economic prosperity, democratic participation and global competitiveness.

The plan is meant as a blueprint for FCC and congressional action to address these challenges. But it has left many of the details for later, and that’s where devils lurk.

Here’s where things currently stand:

Few Choices: High-speed Internet users suffer from a lack of choice in the marketplace. According to data in the plan, 5 percent of households have no wireline providers; 13 percent of households have one, and 78 percent have just two wireline providers. In other words, 96 percent of the country has two or fewer choices for wired broadband.

Slow Speeds: Americans are paying a whole lot more and getting a whole lot less of the Internet speeds that we deserve. U.S. broadband speeds average about 4 to 5 megabits per second (Mbps) when downloading and 1 Mbps when uploading. That’s a fraction of the download speeds available to users in other countries. For example, Japanese internet users accustomed to surfing the Web at speeds of 100 Mbps at the same prices Americans pay for access to the slow lane. In Hong Kong, one provider now offers a 100 Mbps connection for $13 a month.

High Prices: Americans are at the mercy of cable and phone companies that continually jack up Internet prices simply because they can get away with it. A 2009 study by the Pew Internet and American Life project found that where there are fewer choices for broadband, prices skyrocket. A comparative global study by Harvard’s Berkman Center bears this out: The faster speeds get in America, the fewer options people have and the more expensive they become.

And it’s about to get worse. Comcast and Time Warner Cable just announced price increases; and Verizon and AT&T are flirting with an Internet metering model, which will force you to pay through the nose if you use the Internet for more than just basic e-mail and Web surfing.

The elephant in the room? The FCC plan does not propose the kind of tough measures necessary to create competition and realize President Obama’s vision of universal, fast, affordable Internet.

This lack of competition goes a long way toward explaining how the United States has become a broadband backwater – falling further behind other countries in every measure of Internet success.

It also explains how ISPs earn obscene profit margins from broadband services in uncompetitive markets. Craig Moffett, an industry analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., noted that the margin for Comcast's broadband service is on the order of 80 percent. In other words, Comcast charges customers $40 for something that costs the company $8 to supply.

Taking on the Incumbents

“It’s very important now that we move to action,” Chairman Genachowski said during a press conference on Tuesday. “You’ll be seeing a lot of action at the FCC in the weeks and months ahead.”

To connect every American to a world-class broadband network, we need more than FCC benchmarks; we need to confront the market power or the phone and cable company’s head on.

This is an immense task. The FCC and Congress must muster the courage to stand up to the narrow corporate interests that control prices, speeds and access for the vast majority of Americans.

Proposals are on the table that would open markets where few choices exist. They include calls for open access to increase competition, and Net Neutrality to protect the Internet’s fundamental openness.

Getting these reforms in place is going to be hard-going in Washington, where the phone and cable lobby still dictate policy. On these and many other key issues in the plan, the FCC has deferred the fight with industry for now.

But that fight is inevitable, and the sooner we have it the better.

Without public support and bold leadership from the FCC and Congress, the National Broadband Plan could end up skirting the biggest problems standing between Americans and a better future: entrenched phone and cable companies.

America's Communications Breakdown

Too often in Washington, words speak louder than actions. Tuesday, however, was not one of those times.

As lobbyists for the largest Internet providers gushed over a National Broadband Plan designed to deliver fast and affordable Internet services to Americans who are currently priced out of the market, one of the largest providers, Comcast, informed customers that it planned to raise its rates even higher.

For those in Comcast's service area, the news couldn't have come at a worse time. Some 35 percent of the country is still stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide. Their main obstacle to access is cost. Surveys by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, the Federal Communications Commission and others find that most of those without broadband say "the price would have to fall" before they can afford to connect.

But Comcast won't go there. Instead, the cable giant opted to jack up rates for access to all of its broadband services, including prices for its most basic offerings.

Inclusion Illusion

But don't let that news stop Comcast's top lobbyists from talking a good game about digital inclusion.

"Getting more Americans connected to broadband -- it's a critical goal that we should all support," Joe Waz, Comcast's Senior VP of External Affairs, wrote late last year. The FCC's national broadband plan is a "real blueprint for how we address the nation's true broadband priorities," he added in January.

Still, the company seems unwilling to explain the rationale for its latest price increase.

Landel Hobbs, the chief operating officer for Time Warner Cable, offers his perspective. During a meeting with investors, Hobbs said his company can raise broadband prices simply because it can get away with it: "Consumers like it so much that we have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data."

Not quite. It's not that consumers like pricey cable services like Comcast and Time Warner Cable; it's because they have few to no other choices in the marketplace.

Market Failure

There are 11 major Internet service providers in America (companies with more than a million customers), according to market research by ISP Planet. But those numbers can be deceiving. Most communities that have high-speed Internet access are only served by one cable and one telephone company. A significant number of rural communities lack any broadband options. And alternatives to phone and cable, like wireless Internet and broadband transmitted over power lines, still fail to offer viable competition.

All told, this phone and cable duopoly controls more than 95 percent of broadband connections to the home in the United States. Americans have few choices but to pay far too much for Internet connections that are much slower than what's available to consumers in developed countries in Europe and Asia.

Spiraling broadband prices are a key indicator of this marketplace breakdown. While the costs for providing connections to homes are declining, Internet providers keep hiking their rates. It's an arrangement that benefits local cable monopolies well, while emptying customers' wallets.

As a result, cable operators' record obscene profit margins. Craig Moffett, an industry analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., noted that the margin for Comcast's broadband service is on the order of 80 percent. In other words, Comcast charges customers $40 for something that costs the company $8 to supply.

Highway Robbery

On Wednesday, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in a statement that price increases like those announced by Comcast are "an issue we must examine closely going forward."

"Just as we are in the process of proposing steps to ensure that more people are comfortable signing up for broadband service, providers of that very service are raising prices," Clyburn said. "Across-the-board price increases, especially on those who can least afford it, should raise a red flag for the Commission."

This is a good sign. The FCC has long avoided confronting the competition problem, leaving American consumers at the mercy of phone and cable executives whose only interest is in overcharging customers to boost their margins.

The resulting competition failures are why America continues to lag our global counterparts in every measure of broadband success.

"We hope that the FCC follows Commissioner Clyburn's lead and confronts these issues directly," Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott said in a statement. "American consumers need the market to work for them, not against them."

The public will take the industry's rhetoric about closing the digital divide more seriously when it walks its own talk.

Shills Among Us? Just Say PShAW

The great thing about the open Internet is that it makes room for amazing sites like, well, this one.

The Huffington Post has been successful because it has opened its platform for public debate on issues that are too often ignored by traditional media.

And with its largely open publishing platform, it's become a home for people seeking an alternative to the mainstream mouthpieces that dominate news and commentary on the networks -- giving us the freedom to publish whenever we want.

It's been truly invaluable in the efforts of people, including me and my colleagues at Free Press, who are waging a fight to preserve Net Neutrality -- the principle that protects the free-flowing Web. It's allowed us to use the Internet to save the Internet, and find a broad audience of readers and followers who aren't hearing crucial media policy debates in the mainstream media.

Because the Huffington Post has been so successful in circumventing traditional media gatekeepers, a lot of people want to get in on it -- including the gatekeepers themselves.

Shill-A-Mongus

As the fight for Net Neutrality heats up again in Washington, Huffington Post has been infiltrated by a handful of shills attacking the open Internet and disparaging reform efforts by groups like ours.

That's the beauty of the Internet, right? But the problem is that these folks aren't telling the full story. They often neglect to mention in their bios -- alongside their old jobs in government, their innocuous-sounding organizations, or their academic credentials -- that they are being paid by powerful phone and cable companies seeking to kill Net Neutrality.

This technique is classic "astroturf" -- the fake grassroots -- a time-honored but nauseating tradition in Washington, where PR consultants hire themselves out to the highest bidders with a guarantee to generate friendly press for any agenda.

Their overarching goal in the case of the open Internet is to put the genie back in the bottle ... so traditional media gatekeepers can regain control over Web content.

They're now taking advantage of the open nature of the Huffington Post to pass themselves off as impartial observers. And in one case, they appear to have blocked comments from readers who might want to question their motivations. The only way you'd know about their ulterior motives is if you dig deep into their Web sites or watch them closely every day.

You don't have time for that. But I do.

Just say 'PShAW'

So with this post, I'm announcing the formation of the (unofficial) Post Shill and Astroturf Watch, or PShAW for short, which will shine a light on the shills, flacks and other fakers who are trying to pull one over on you.

Here at PShAW, we're all for disagreement and debate. But we also believe in full disclosure. So in that spirit, let me be clear that neither Free Press, PShAW, nor I take a dime from any businesses, media and telecom industry groups, political parties or the government.

The individuals below can't say the same. But, of course, I encourage you to follow the links below and judge for yourself. While you're at it, you might want to visit their posts and add a comment. If they won't publish it, please share it in the comments below.

Also to be clear, PShAW is unoficial -- not a sanctioned Huffington Post project but something bubbling up from below, among readers and contributors who respect the Huffington Post and want to keep it deception free.

Now, onto our first installment:

Bret Swanson: Swanson is so convinced of his argument against Net Neutrality that he appears to have prohibited reader comments on his post. Such bravery comes courtesy of Arts + Labs, an AT&T-funded front group that funds digitalsociety.org, where Swanson is a "Fellow." Prior to his current gig, Swanson was a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, best known for it's assault on scientific reasoning to discredit Darwin. The loosey goosey logic behind Swanson's shilling on Huffington Post was decimated on Friday by DSLReports.com.

Michael Turk: Turk is a colleague of Swanson's at the industry funded digitalsociety.org. Turk cut his teeth running "grassroots campaigns" for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which lobbies on behalf of the nation's largest cable companies. He also worked as a technology consultant for Grassroots Enterprise -- a D.C. astroturf shop that lists the cable lobby among its premiere clients. Turk also fails to disclose that he's is a principle in a new PR firm -- called Craft Media Digital -- which lists arch-Net Neutrality foe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a client.

Patrick Maines: Maines will tell you that he's the president of the Media Institute. He won't tell you, however, that in that capacity he's simply a hired gun for Verizon, AT&T, Viacom, Clear Channel Communications, Time Warner Inc, News Corp and other media giants who make up the Institute's esteemed board of trustees. This explains his efforts on Huffington Post to take down anyone who threatens the nation's media oligarchy ... in this case, insulting the millions of people who support more diverse public media and open Internet.

Robert Atkinson: As president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Atkinson can be counted on to discredit efforts to protect an open Internet and create more market competition. What he's reluctant to say though is that his Institute is funded by telecommunications companies, which probably explains his preference for spending your tax dollars on a massive giveaway to the biggest phone and cable companies -- with zero accountability.

I know the good people at Huffington Post don't mean to pull a fast one on their legions of loyal readers. But they can always use a hand from the community. So the next time one of these travelers crosses your radar on Huffington Post say "PShAW," call them out in their comments (if they let you), and stay tuned to the (unofficial) Post Shill and Astroturf Watch for reports on the latest hack job.

-- Timothy Karr is the campaign director for Free Press, the nation's largest media reform group. Free Press accepts no funding from businesses, industry groups, political parties or the government.

When Corporate Shills Attack

The Huffington Post just published an attack on Free Press from Patrick Maines, the president of a corporate front group called the Media Institute.

The Institute's sole purpose seems to be to take down anyone who threatens the nation’s media oligarchy ... in this case, cutting down people who support more diverse public media and a more open Internet.

Maines: Keeping us safe from "paleoleftists"

In his Huffington Post bio Maines claims to promote a strong First Amendment. However, he doesn't tell readers that he's a hired gun for Verizon, AT&T, Viacom, Clear Channel Communications, Time Warner Inc, News Corp and other media giants.

When I wrote a reply pointing out the corporate link above, it was deleted. I have re-submitted the comment four times and it has been deleted four times.

Apparently, Maines, who professes to love the First Amendment, thinks free speech is good for only the companies that sign his paycheck, and not people like you and me.

Now he's turned to red-baiting to spread the gospel of mainstream media. This from his article:

Free Press is the absurd name of a paleoleftist organization that sees government influence over the media as a way to advance its larger political views, a point made both explicitly and inadvertently in the published opinions of the group's founder and Maximum Leader, Professor Robert McChesney. Free Press … coins amusingly infantile slogans like "Net neutrality: the First Amendment of the Internet."

Free Press is a regular target of the corporate-funded right on sites like BigGovernment.com, cable shows like Glenn Beck, and by astroturf groups like Americans for Prosperity.

But it’s particularly disturbing now to see the same types pedaling their junk on Huffington Post.

I have written for Huffington for several years and still do, gratefully. When I write something for Arianna, I do so with the understanding that, while readers may not agree with me, they will know that I come by my opinions honestly, that I am not working some hidden agenda. (Free Press doesn’t accept a dime from industry, industry groups, government or political parties.)

I respect Huffington Post for building a home for many of us who seek an alternative to the mainstream mouthpieces that dominate news and commentary. But they do not, unfortunately, require the kind of disclosure I'd like to see regarding a new crop of contributors who are using the site to push corporate agendas. I'm hoping that will change soon.

It may look from a distance that "independent" groups are calling those of us who believe in media reform and an open Internet "paleoleftists" and socialists, it's just the same fear-mongering groups that attack Progressives all the time -- whether we're advocating health care reform, labor rights or curbs to carbon emissions.

I'm not asking Huffington to block voices with whom I disagree. But there should be more clarity when featuring content that has been bought and paid for by powerful corporations seeking to defeat reform.

AT&T Consultant Conjures ‘Evidence’ that Obama is Cooling on Net Neutrality

There’s some buzz about a recent CNET article by Larry Downes claiming that the Obama administration is backing away from Net Neutrality.

Downes knits together a loose set of assumptions to make this case. And the usual suspects have amplified his argument as proof indisputable that Net Neutrality advocates are on the ropes.

It took Nancy Scola of The American Prospect to dig up dirt on Downes that CNET failed to disclose:

"[M]issing from Downes' scary op-ed on the Obama Administration's commitment to net neutrality: any mention that one of Downes' recent clients at the consulting firm Bell Mason Group is AT&T -- one of neutrality regulation's strongest opponents."

CNET, however, does list Downes as a "fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society."

Too many "scholars" live this sort of double life -- trading on academic credentials to lay a gloss of credibility over their telco-friendly arguments. It's up to news orgs (ahem… CNET) to disclose both sides of their personalities.

But let's put that aside for the moment and weigh Downes' case for what it's worth.

Open Internet = Real Recovery

Phone and cable company spokespeople have repeatedly asserted that Net Neutrality rules would thwart investment needed to bridge the digital divide. And that this in turn would result in the loss of jobs.

Downes follows this theme, writing that Net Neutrality is a "noisy side show" distracting from "the real priority for both the White House and the FCC: getting the country wired for recovery."

Unfortunately, some on the left have bought this argument whole -- and even signed on to anti-Neutrality letters -- without weighing any evidence to support it.

That's because there is no evidence.

Claims that Net Neutrality will hurt investment and the economy are simply meant to distract attention from efforts by companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to use their market power to thwart competition and reduce investment.

In a report released in October, Free Press actually looked at the market data (required disclosure by the SEC) and found no connection between Net Neutrality and capital expenditure in new networks.

The report finds that open Internet rules will likely have a positive impact on investment in both the network and applications markets -- which in turn has a positive impact on jobs.

"There is no doubt that without Net Neutrality, investment in the broader Internet applications and content markets will be substantially harmed," writes S. Derek Turner, Free Press research director and the report’s author.

Net Neutrality = Billions of Dollars in Value

NYU's Institute of Policy Integrity put an exclamation mark to Derek's point. In a report they released earlier this week, they find that Net Neutrality fosters an essential "open and entrepreneurial dynamic" that "creates billions of dollars in value for the American public."

The Institute calls for meaningful Net Neutrality rules to protect the real values of the Internet -- its openness to new ideas, innovation and entrepreneurship:

"At its heart, Net Neutrality regulation is about who will get more surplus from the Internet market. Enforcing Net Neutrality keeps the surplus in the hands of the content providers. Eliminating it transfers the surplus to ISPs."

Free Press’ own market-based analysis finds that such transfer of capital would likely result in padded profit margins for companies like AT&T and Comcast and not investment in a faster and more accessible Internet.

It's against these companies' interests to give us the Internet we want (a fast, open and accessible Internet that’s unfettered by gatekeepers).

And since the Internet is essential infrastructure for 21st century prosperity, regulation is needed to protect against abuses of market power that will harm our economy in the long run.

Downes was too busy conjuring conclusions that made AT&T happy to actually make sense of the facts.

Washington's Hidden Economy

Astroturf. You may have heard the word or even seen the fake grassroots in action.

Astroturf groups are front operations that take corporate money to promote an industry's policy agenda, covering their tracks behind phony grassroots Web façades.

It's a formula for success that works in favor of deep-pocketed corporations. So much so that astroturf has spread over Washington like kudzu, stifling genuine public debate under a tangle of industry spin.

Astroturf is Washington's new invective. It's hurled left and right to dismiss groups that are engaged on both sides of President Obama's reform efforts.

"I'm pretty sure the grass is Astroturf-er over on the NetRoots [side]," wrote Phil Kerpen, policy director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative forum funded at least in part by big corporate benefactors. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow shot back, calling Kerpen's boss an astroturf "parasite" who "gets fat" taking corporate money to spread fear about reform.

But how can you tell astroturf from... well, the real grassroots?

It should be as simple as following the money. That trail usually leads directly to ExxonMobil (in the case of "Energy Citizens"), Peabody Energy (the "Clean Coal" campaign), the health insurance industry ("Patients United Now"), phone and cable companies ("Information Technology and Innovation Foundation"), and to any number of corporate special interests that are well practiced in Washington's art of deception.

The D.C. Dodge

But following the money is exactly what these groups don’t want you to do. Even when pressed, astroturf spokespeople duck and dodge, often claiming that revealing the identities of their donors would hamper a noble cause -- such as transparency.

Seems outrageous, right? Not to the many Washington insiders who regularly reap the rewards of the astroturf economy. Just look at the money flooding in to oppose Net Neutrality, an issue that has transformed the arcane debate over telecommunications policy into a full-fledged mudfest.

In the first three quarters of 2009, AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc., Verizon, and their trade groups spent nearly $75 million, according to the Senate Office of Public Records. They have used this to hire more than 500 lobbyists to discredit public interest calls for an open Internet.

Over the last four-year political cycle, they maxed out their legal allowance, contributing $33 million to federal campaigns to win the hearts and minds of elected leaders. And that's just the money we know about.

Because they're bankrolling astroturf behind a fig leaf of "public relations," large corporations aren't legally required to disclose the lion’s share of their funding of these fake grassroots groups.

"The estimates range from double to two to three times the $3.2 billion that was spent [in 2008] on direct lobbying in Washington," says Craig Holman, the legislative representative for watchdog group Public Citizen. "Astroturf work is expensive."

Protecting the Status Quo

These massive undisclosed sums include costs for high-end public relations firms, legal fees, push polling, direct mail efforts, and dubious think tank research.

On Internet policy, astroturf groups have pocketed millions from industry to fulfill Job No. 1: Lock in incumbent phone and cable companies' control over high-speed Internet connections in America. At present, these companies provide 97 percent of fixed connections into American homes, a status quo they are willing to spend untold sums to maintain.

This means hiring astroturf spokespeople to oppose any Internet consumer protections or policy reforms that would open the market to more competitors and consumer choice. In the hands of a skilled astroturf spokesperson, such reforms are radical, untested, and cumbersome regulations designed to smother the cyberspace economy, which has thrived in a magical realm free of government oversight.

Never mind that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules -- from the Carterfone decision to the Part 15 unlicensed ruling and "white spaces" decision -- were responsible for everything from the introduction of the first Internet modems to the proliferation of WiFi, and for prying open spectrum for the next generation of smart phones.

This evidence doesn't stop Mike McCurry from telling the world that "the Internet has worked absent regulation," a song the White-House-press-secretary-turned-hired-gun has been singing to the tune of a quarter-million-dollar paycheck from phone and cable companies.

This is how astroturfers hijack the debate. And if they're not debunked, it's how control over Internet access -- and potentially over content -- will be handed over wholesale to the few ISPs that dominate the marketplace.

That's the destructive irony of the astroturf economy. Millions of dollars are funneled into efforts to spread populist-sounding rhetoric that actually undermines the public, and protects the swindle that has turned Washington into a big company town.

-- Karr’s article was originally published at Internet Evolution.