Comcast's 'Bill of Rights,' Wrong for an Open Internet

Comcast can't seem to get it straight.

On the one hand they're snubbing a debate over openness and the Internet -- refusing to take part in yesterday's FCC public hearing. On the other, they've announced plans to open an industry-wide conversation to craft a "bill of rights" for ISPs, Internet companies and users.

The latter, a Comcast collaboration with Internet traffic managing company Pando Networks, received mixed reviews earlier this week when the cable company rolled it before the media.

I trashed it. And now my initial concerns seem justified.

The Right to Special Treatment

For just as the public hearings were getting underway in Stanford, Robert Levitan, Pando chief executive, told the New York Times that "he hoped Comcast might program its network to give preference to applications like the one his company makes."

Levitan's admission exposes the true motives behind industry efforts to craft a "bill of rights:" to lay the ground for an Internet rife with discriminatory deals and preferential treatment.

"The company appears to want to use the network management issues raised by Comcast to seek a deal that provides them preferential distribution over the Internet," Markham Erickson, executive director of the Open Internet Coalition, said in a statement.

"It is exactly why technology companies, innovators, and millions of consumers have argued that the marketplace is not working properly and have asked the FCC provide basic rules of the road to protect against such behavior."

The Right to Ignore the Rules

The industry's carefully orchestrated announcements of initiatives to self-regulate are not the magic of the free market at work, Free Press policy director Ben Scott testified yesterday. "It is the threat of regulatory intervention."

Without that threat -- and an agency willing to act on behalf of the public interest -- we'd have already sacrificed several basic Internet freedoms to the whims of Pando and Comcast.

"Comcast actions to date have shown that they can't be trusted to 'self regulate,'" L. Peter Deutsch, a pioneering Xerox Palo Alto Research Center computer scientist, told the FCC. "Allowing the big carriers rather than consumers and public interest advocates, to take the lead in codifying a 'bill of rights' for Internet users would be like letting King George's cabinet take the lead in writing the U.S. Constitution."

Comcast had hoped that we would all interpret the "bill of rights" as a genuine -- to conclude that public hearings and FCC oversight were not needed to keep the Internet open for everyone.

The Right to Undermine the Internet

The Comcast message, in case you've missed it, sounds like this: "The free market can solve its own problems and deliver to end users the Internet experience that they desire. Trust us."

"A tiger has a nature, and that nature is not one you trust with your child," Professor Larry Lessig said during yesterday's Stanford hearing. "A company has a nature. It's nature is to produce economic values and wealth for its share holders."

According to Lessig, that one essential truth is about as much trust that the public needs to extend to public corporations. It's understood that they will behave in this way, and nothing is wrong with that.

Public policy, on the other hand, is designed to make it profitable for corporations to behave in ways that serve the public interest.

According to Lessig: "We set public policy to create the incentives for them to pick the right business models."

In a perfect scenario we also set public policy to foster more a productive and economically beneficial marketplace for all involved. Net Neutrality is such a policy.

Stanford Hearing an Internet Wake-Up Call

Get ready for Round Two in the Internet's Battle Royale of 2008. At stake is whether we should allow a handful of giant corporations to close the Web for their own gain, or whether we should put in place baseline protections that will leave our Internet open to the millions of people who use it.

Round One occurred late February at a public event in Boston, where Comcast deployed paid seat-fillers to bar others from entering an official hearing of the Federal Communications Commission.

It's a shame so many people missed the event. While Comcast seat-warmers snoozed, a collection of Harvard and MIT scholars, Internet advocates, industry leaders, engineers and policymakers nearly all agreed that Internet blocking has serious consequences for each and every one of us.

I say "nearly" because Comcast remains defiant. Despite recent overtures to certain file sharing companies, its executive vice president, David Cohen, continues to insist to the FCC and the world that "Comcast does not block any Web site, application or Web protocol including peer-to-peer services."

The FCC in Silicon Valley

We'll no doubt hear more industry spin during the second FCC hearing, scheduled to occur on the Stanford campus, April 17. Barring any new tricks from Comcast, the public should be able to attend. The venue hold's more than 700 people. And we'll be sure to be on guard for anyone who plans to bus in paid sleeper cells.

Stanford is the perfect place and time to take to the next level the public conversation about an Internet free of corporate gatekeepers. It's the crossroads of Web innovation, research and investment. And the FCC has allowed at least two hours for public testimony. (The SavtheInternet.com Coalition is working with allies and partners on the ground to be sure everyone who wants to testify has a turn at the microphone.)

This is a important opportunity. It is rare for all five members of the Federal Communications Commission to leave Washington, D.C. together. It's rarer still to have them together accepting public input in the Bay Area.

An Alarming Trend

And there's no better time to hear from us. Comcast has been caught blocking BitTorrent, Verizon has been caught blocking text messages, AT&T wants to inspect and filter Web traffic.

In 2005 and 2006, the phone and cable companies told us they planned to block and discriminate. The top executives of major telecom companies have stated clearly in the pages of BusinessWeek, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post that they would like to favor certain content over others.

In 2007, they showed us they meant business. In addition to Comcast’s assault on competing file-sharing applications, Verizon has blocked text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its own members, and AT&T is hatching plans to filter and inspect all Web traffic for perceived copyright infringements.

With so much at stake at Stanford, it's encouraging that the FCC's first move is to quickly seek public feedback and expert counsel about the future of the Internet.

Show Up and Speak Out

That the Boston hearing was marred by Comcast’s efforts to stack the crowd in its favor — leaving concerned citizens out in the cold — demonstrates again why we can’t trust these types of companies with an Internet that is vital to our democracy and prosperity.

Those who should ultimately decide the Internet’s future are people like you and me — everyone who uses the Internet every day and in every way. That’s why every citizen needs to get involved right now.

Help Spread the Word

1. Promote the Hearing -- Download a Flier

2. Get Connected With Others -- Join Us on Facebook

3. Invite Others - Tell A Friend

Download More Information on Internet Freedom

1. Separate Fact From Fiction -- Net Neutrality Myths and Realities.

2. Download Talking Points -- 4 Things You Need to Know.

3. Why Internet Freedom is a Civil Rights Issue.

The Heat is on an Open Internet

For an excellent perspective on Net Neutrality, read Saturday's New York Times op-ed by OK Go guitarist Damian Kulash.

OK Go Goes to Washington

Kulash, who recently spent time on the Hill with bandmate Andy Ross, explains the central conflict over an open or closed Internet.

"At root there’s a pretty simple question," he writes. "How much control should network operators be allowed to have over the information on their lines?"

More than Censorship

Kulash points to recent events where operators have crossed the line into gatekeeping.

In addition to Comcast's assault on file-sharing applications, Verizon has blocked text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its members, and AT&T, which has censored Pearl Jam concert Webcasts, is now hatching plans to filter and inspect all Web traffic for perceived copyright infringements.

"When the network operators pull these stunts, there is generally widespread outrage," Kulash writes. "But outright censorship and obstruction of access are only one part of the issue, and they represent the lesser threat, in the long run. What we should worry about more is not what’s kept from us today, but what will be built (or not built) in the years to come."

To allow these companies to slowly build a system of gatekeepers into the network is the real and present threat, he writes.

"Exactly," Internet guru David Isenberg said in response to Kulash's comment. "Outright censorship is way too visible for them to get away with. Creeping proactive censorship built into a new infrastructure is a much harder story to tell. And a much bigger danger."

Boiling the Frog

It's analogous to "boiling the frog," according to Art Brodsky of Public Knowledge.

The frog metaphor goes something like this: "If you throw a frog into boiling water, it will jump out. But if you put a frog in warm water, and gradually raise the temperature, it will become acclimated, until it becomes cooked."

Through endless lobbying and their own meddling with the pipes, phone and cable companies have been slowly shifting the way the Internet operates, bringing it into line with their profit plans.

Over time, these incremental shifts in policy and perception amount to radical and harmful changes to an Internet that has fostered free speech, economic innovation and opened governments to public scrutiny.

The Heat is On

We have now arrived at the boiling point for the modern Internet. It's time Americans became more involved with communications policy decisions being made in their name, but not necessarily with their consent.

Congress is considering a bill -- the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" -- and the Federal Communications Commission weighing new rules on network gatekeeping at this very moment. Both of these processes are open to public input.

As Kulash put it today:

The telephone company doesn’t get to decide what we discuss over our phone lines. It would be absurd to let the handful of companies who connect us to the Internet determine what we can do online. Congress needs to establish basic ground rules for an open Internet, just as common carriage laws did for the phone system.

Exactly.

America's Internet Future Looking Like Its Past

So much for a cheaper, faster and more open Internet?

With news that AT&T and Verizon have just won the most significant chunks of available wireless spectrum, Americans face a future of more of the same: slower Internet speeds for prices that are far higher than what many people pay in Europe and Asia.

The Home of the Internet?

And without action to restore Net Neutrality protections, the Web we get may be blinkered by phone and cable companies' ability to restrict the content and applications we may want to use.

Earlier this year, Verizon and AT&T plunked down a combined $16.3 billion for the largest blocks of licenses to use the public spectrum up for sale on the "700 band."

When Congress authorized this auction, their stated intention was to pry open our cell phone and broadband markets to consumer choice and new competition. But having Verizon and AT&T control the most significant chunks of the spectrum -- including the so-called national C Block -- means more of the same for Internet users.

At the moment, U.S. Internet users face a broadband duopoly where nearly 99 percent of all residential connections are provided by incumbent cable or phone companies. The wireless spectrum that went up for bid represented a new way to get high-speed Internet services to millions of Americans.

And it couldn't come at a more crucial time. The cost of broadband in other countries continues to drop dramatically while speeds have increased. But U.S. consumers still pay more -- 10 to 25 times more on a price per megabit basis than broadband users in Japan -- and get less.

Verizon and AT&T are already among the most dominant providers of "wired" broadband access in the U.S. Their victories over the bulk of 700 MHz licenses leave slim prospects for genuine Internet competition via a wireless "third pipe."

The Mobile Web on Hold

The popularity of the iPhone gave us a limited glimpse of the democratic potential of a mobile Internet. Imagine a time when people are able to connect to the high-speed Internet wherever they are and without any restrictions to the content they chose to pull off and push onto the Web.

The technology is already available -- and so are the airwaves that could connect people on the go. But the giant incumbents would rather erect more toll booths and roadblocks than let us have a truly open Internet in our pockets. Sadly, our bureaucrats and elected officials seem content to let them have their way.

With the auction news, we just lost an opportunity to take the mobile Web to the next level and do something really innovative with our last, best spectrum.

Verizon's stance against Net Neutrality -- combined with its censoring of cell phone text messages "for any reason or no reason" -- means the newly won C Block will likely not become the haven for free speech and openness that many had hoped to see.

And don't expect either Verizon or AT&T to do anything in the wireless space that threatens their status quo of control over the wired broadband market. Why would they build cheaper and more open mobile networks that could cannibalize their legacy land-line businesses?

What's Next

In response to public pressure, the Federal Communications Commission will require Verizon to allow any device or software application on its network.

This is a positive first step toward new wireless innovation and openness. And the billions brought into the Treasury by this auction – double congressional estimates -- prove wrong the industry Cassandras and shills who claimed that open spectrum protections would dampen demand, drive down the price and scare away bidders.

But Verizon and AT&T likely paid so much for this spectrum for other reasons. They didn't do so to bring to the market new and open innovations at low prices; they did it to protect their market power from a new ideas and competitive threats.

To keep pressure on the incumbents we need to continue to press for openness and innovation -- not just via this new spectrum but over all of our wireless networks.

Last year, the Internet phone company Skype filed a petition at the FCC today asking that the agency ensure that any users of mobile devices has the freedom to communicate over all wireless networks.

This petition has important ramifications for all of us who want to carry the Internet in our pockets via hand-held devices that connect us to broadband in the same way we do via our home computers -- without the interference of wireless gatekeepers who can unilaterally determine what devices and applications can function on available wireless networks.

This is a revolutionary idea. But without public and political pressure, I expect very little change to the closed and predatory approach taken by the likes of Verizon and AT&T.

Moreover, these deep-pocketed incumbents will always win access to our public airwaves under these sorts of auctions.

We need to rethink the ways we dole out licenses in ways that will allow upstarts and innovators to enter the marketplace and break up the slow-moving broadband cartel. It's time we unlocked our spectrum so users can enjoy the future of the Internet today.

OK Go to Congress: OK Act

Internet phenom OK Go swept through Washington earlier this week urging their fans and Congress to support Net Neutrality -- the longstanding principle that protects our ability to go where we want, watch what we like and connect to whomever we choose on the Internet.

The band's success is a testament to an open Internet. OK Go was propelled to national fame via the popularity of their YouTube videos. One, a treadmill dance along to the song "Here It Goes Again," has been viewed more than 31 million times.

OK Go Goes to Washington

"If people wonder whether the music industry will benefit from Net Neutrality they can look no further than us," said OK Go’s lead singer and guitarist Damian Kulash in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.

"There really is some consensus here that Net Neutrality is good for music and good for musicians… I’m here to ask you today to preserve Net Neutrality and the openness of the Internet. I believe it's critical to the future of music."

OK Act

After the hearing Kulash and OK Go keyboardist Andy Ross did a brief video interview with SavetheInternet.com calling for support of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR 5353). "Call your Congress person, write to him … and let him know how important it is," Kulash said.

More than 1.6 million Americans have already taken action on behalf of an open Internet. Still, Congress has yet to act to protect this fundamental freedom -- at a time when our Internet rights are under attack from politically powerful phone and cable companies.

OK Go met with Senate and House members to discuss the importance of taking action on Net Neutrality to help foster musical creativity and independence. While sitting down with Rep Ed Markey (D-Mass), co-sponsor of the bipartisan House bill, Kulash and Ross spoke more about their YouTube success.

OK Go With Rep. Markey

"This video certainly would not have gotten out if it weren't for Net Neutrality," Kulash Said. "We're a hard working band. We've played over a thousand shows in America over the last 10 years. The [video] really was the turning point for our visibility. If we hadn't had this opportunity, we wouldn't be here today. There really is some consensus that Net Neutrality is what the music world needs for it to thrive and continue to innovate."

"We really appreciate the work that you have done on the issue, the leadership and the bill that you've sponsored in the House," Ross told Markey. "We hope lots of people get behind it and our fans support it."

Rocking the Net

The band came to Washington to support Rock the Net, a coalition of more than 800 bands that have joined together to support Net Neutrality. The Coalition is a project of the Future of Music Coalition – a SavetheInternet.com member -- which has been active organizing musicians and independent labels in support of an open Internet and against corporate interference.

Future of Music's Jenny Toomey and Michael Bracy have written that for musicians Net Neutrality means "they should have the unfettered ability to make their work available to potential fans without undue interference from corporate gatekeepers."

At Tuesday's House hearing, Committee Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said: “Congress should act to preserve Net Neutrality. I am concerned that if Congress stands by and does nothing, we will soon find ourselves living in a world where those who pay can play, but those who don’t are simply out of luck."

EXCLUSIVE: OK Go Performs on Capitol Hill

The bipartisan Internet Freedom Preservation Act is major first step in a forward-thinking communications policy.

Without being strongly regulatory, it modernizes existing media policy to ensure that Net Neutrality protections apply to new broadband services, just as they did to dial-up. It ensures that economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech will continue to flourish across the Internet.

"The Internet has always been a place where innovation and new ideas can thrive, Kulash said while on the Hill. "It's only recently that it's become legal for the big telecommunications companies to try to decide what we can or can't do on the Internet. I think it's important to make sure that we enshrine the level playing field in law so that the Internet will always be the great source of Internet and openness that it has been."

In Boston: A Shot Heard 'Round the Internet

Something may have been lost in this week's brief media frenzy over "seat-gate" -- the much discussed incident where Comcast hired people off the street to keep out the public from this Monday's FCC hearing in Boston.

Comcast's Sleeper Cell

But while Comcast's seat-warmers slept, a collection of Cambridge scholars, Internet advocates, industry leaders, engineers and policymakers nearly all agreed that Internet blocking has serious consequences for each and every one of us.

I say "nearly" because Comcast remains defiant; its executive vice president, David Cohen, continues to insist that "Comcast does not block any Web site, application or Web protocol including peer-to-peer services."

Cohen sets a high bar with that denial, especially since extensive testing has shown exactly the opposite to be true.

"There a single fact here that [Comcast] cannot deny," explained Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu. "Users of the Internet, sought to use an application in a certain way, and they were blocked."

This view was supported later by David Reed of MIT's Media Lab, who had also experimented with popular file-sharing applications and found that Comcast was duping users with forged network transmissions that cut off user connections. "Comcast's secretive attempt to apply non-standard management practices creates serious problems," he said.

No Problem?

Comcast's Cohen said that this was probably just a minor issue at the engineering level and then declared that his engineers just ran a test of BiTorrent and found there to be no blocking, "no problem."

Sound familiar?

For several years now, big phone and cable have claimed that Net Neutrality was "a solution in search of a problem."

But the problem is clear. The phone and cable companies are telling us they're going to discriminate.

The top executives of major telecom companies have stated clearly in the pages of BusinessWeek, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post that they would like to favor certain content over others.

And they're already doing it. In just the past few months, in addition to Comcast's assault on competing file-sharing applications, Verizon has blocked text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its own members, and AT&T is hatching launched plans to filter and inspect all Web traffic for perceived copyright infringements.

Against this backdrop, the Boston hearing will be seen as a call to arms in the struggle over the freedom of the Internet.

Getting Gatekeepers Out of Our Way

It's what my colleague Ben Scott often calls a "clash of civilizations." At stake is whether the Internet will be open, neutral and accessible to all -- or a closed network controlled by a handful of gatekeepers with dreams of monopoly power.

In Boston it became clear to everyone that companies like Comcast seek ultimate control over this most democratic of media and the new economies it will foster.

"Let's bear in mind that the Internet is the communications network that is quickly becoming the backbone for all the other communications networks that Americans use," FCC Commissioner Michael Copps said in Boston. "In other words, how all of this turns out is a very, very big deal for each and every one of us."

Put into those terms it's probably easier to understand why Net Neutrality is so critical. People need to control their ability to speak out, innovate and spread new ideas without the fear that a company like Comcast, Verizon or AT&T will yank the chord.

In Boston Harvard Law professor and network guru Yochai Benkler put it best: "Once you stop looking through the blinders of people trained in 20th Century business models, the Internet is about people connecting to each other, to chat about the silly and the profound, to create together and to organize, to transact and to tell each other stories about who we are, and how are lives might become."

Professor Benkler added that ISPs must understand that this open, user-driven model is the future of the Internet, "or else get out of the way."

We're the Deciders

That the Boston hearing was marred by Comcast's efforts to stack the crowd in its favor -- leaving concerned citizens out in the cold -- demonstrates again why we can't trust these types of companies with an Internet that is vital to our democracy and prosperity.

Those who should ultimately decide the Internet's future are people like you and me -- everyone who uses the Internet every day and in every way. That's why every citizen needs to get involved right now.

On Capitol Hill, Congressmen Ed Markey and Chip Pickering have introduced the bipartisan "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (HR 5353) that would establish Net Neutrality protections for the next generation of Internet networks. Supporting this bill is a good place to start.

Your Internet: Open or Closed?

During a Friday briefing in the chambers of the House Commerce Committee Tim Wu, Ben Scott, Marvin Ammori, Jef Pearlman and Markham Erickson laid out the central struggle in our campaign to save a free-flowing Internet.

At stake is whether the Internet will be open, neutral and accessible to all or a closed network -- controlled by a handful of gatekeepers with monopoly tendencies.

Neutrality v. Monopoly

The speakers laid out this conflict in clear, concise and often chilling terms. Their comments are drawn into relief against a backdrop of abuses by network giants Comcast, AT&T and Verizon.

The stage was also set by Reps. Ed Markey and Chip Pickering, who earlier in the week introduced the "Internet Freedom and Preservation Act" a forward-thinking piece of legislation that would write baseline Net Neutrality protections into the Communications Act, and give the FCC the teeth to stop incidents of discriminatory blocking and censorship over the Internet.

(And let's not forget efforts by many of these same actors to gain immunity from prosecution for unwarranted spying on Americans.)

Why Now?

The Clash of Civilizations

Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, often calls this conflict a "clash of civilizations."

It's a time in our immediate history when traditional media powers are facing off against a new form of communications -- that is more grassroots and decentralized -- and attempting to re-assert their control as they did in the past when the "disruptive technologies" of the broadcast era were being adopted by mass audiences.

"Behind every great and abusive monopoly almost always lies a network ... a network that has been co-opted, which has been turned into a discriminatory network, and which has been then used to carry out and further the power of the monopoly." Said Wu.

Monopoly, Investment and the Public Interest

"So when we are talking about these complicated issues of Comcast blocking and what's going on with NARAL what we are really talking about is whether we will allow these networks to become the seeds of a new generation of dangerous and abusive monopolies."

A Moment in History

Scott asked why we are engaged in this fight over an open verses closed Internet right now.

Through a combination of forces -- including remarkable innovations in technology, surging consumer demand, industry consolidation and policy mistakes -- the U.S. Internet has arrived at a volatile moment.

Comcast's Control Fantasy

Decisions we make about our right to communicate right now will have an impact on our economic and civic life and social health for generations to come.

In the videos embedded here, Wu, Scott, Ammori, Pearlman and Erickson help set the stage for this struggle.

With their legislation this week, Markey and Pickering give us hope that we can send a strong and clear message that heavy-handed telco and cable control will no longer be tolerated.

Towards a People-Powered Web in 2008

In the dimming days of 2007, we bared the Telcos' ugly side for all to see. Powerful communications companies including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast brought us a year of privacy invasions, threats to free speech and the deceptive blocking of Internet applications and access.

But all is not bleak. The year saw a number of prospects for getting high-speed Internet access and open communications to more Americans. But protecting a free-flowing Internet from these would-be gatekeepers depends largely on decisions we will make in 2008.

Below you'll find ten hopeful moments from 2007. Each in its own way has set the stage for the year ahead:

1. Presidential Candidates Back Net Neutrality

For the first time in recent memory, communications policy became an issue on the campaign trail as presidential hopefuls came to realize that a people-powered Internet was good for everyone. Candidate after candidate (at least on the Democratic side) came out in support of a raft of an open Internet.

Hillary Clinton pledged her support for Net Neutrality in January. In May, John Edwards called for true open access while standing alongside millions of activists who support Net Neutrality. Barack Obama's unveiled a comprehensive open technology plan during a November event at the "Googleplex." Other candidates, including Mike Gravel, Christopher Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson expressed support for Net Neutrality, as did Mike Huckabee (albeit obliquely). Expect to hear more from all of those left in the race as new legislation is introduced in the House later this month.

2. iPhone Gives World a Glimpse of the Mobile Web

The geek idol of 2007 remains the iPhone, which despite all its faults (see last week's No. 7) foretells a not-so-distant future where Internet access is constant for those on the go. The mobile Web - a promise made very real by the iPhone's growing popularity - raised real questions about the policies that allowed carriers to control our mobile experience. Why should access to the free flowing Internet be limited by our choice of device?

According to Farhad Manjoo, the iPhone "forced us, for the first time, to confront the thorny public policy issues that the mobile Web will raise, issues sure to consume Silicon Valley, Hollywood and regulators in Washington for the foreseeable future." We took issue when wired line ISPs played gatekeeper to the Web in our homes. We now will take issue with attempts by cellular carriers to wall off Internet access over wireless networks. In November, Google introduced "Android," an open-source mobile phone operating platform. The iPhone and Android opened our eyes to the future and helped us make the case that the Internet - on any device - should be free and open.

3. Telcos Declare New Love for Open Access

A shift in spectrum policy forced the wireless carriers to declare a newfound love for openness. They were singing a different tune less than six months before when public interest groups called on the FCC to make "open access an absolute must" for the upcoming 700 MHz auction. The FCC responded in part by requiring that wireless carriers allow any legal device or application to operate on this new network.

Soon wireless network giant Verizon announced that it, too, believed opening their networks to any device was a good idea. AT&T's wireless division followed suit declaring itself "the most open wireless company in the world," where people were free to use any cell phone. What's less clear - at least from their rhetoric -- are the reasons these "walled gardens" changed their tune on open devices. (After all, Verizon is the same company that had filed suit against the FCC, calling its open requirements "arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and otherwise contrary to law.")

The answer: Sound policy, public advocacy and consumer demand can force change to even the most entrenched ways of doing business. Had it not been for this potent political cocktail, the big carriers would have happily left their networks closed, their cell phones locked and their technologies far behind the curve.

4. We Told You So: Verizon, AT&T and Comcast Are the 'Problem'

In 2007, the discriminatory tendencies of the would-be gatekeepers were dragged from beneath a rock for all to see. During a live Lollapalooza webcast of a Pearl Jam concert, AT&T muted lead singer Eddie Vedder just as he launched into a lyric criticizing President Bush. Later, Verizon Wireless blocked NARAL Pro-Choice America's efforts to send mobile text messages to its members. Then Comcast was found secretly blocking peer-to-peer file sharing programs like BitTorrent and Gnutella.

While these violations made our list of the "Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007," they demonstrate a pressing need for basic Internet protections. Net Neutrality is not "a solution in search of a problem," as the telcos liked to say. Their actions made it patently clear that the problem is very real.

5. Congress Wakes Up, Holds Hearings, Pledges Action in '08

In 2007 the new Congress treated the Internet as more than just a "series of tubes" holding hearings in both chambers on a range of critical issues -- from better data collection to cell phone freedom and Universal Service Fund reforms -- designed to rescue America from its second-class broadband status. This was a sea change from the previous Congress, which tended to believe that the future of the "Internets" was best left to the whims of the phone and cable lobbyists. All told, there were nearly a dozen hearings in 2007, including rigorous debate on how public policy could foster free-market innovation, universal access and global competitiveness.

In the House, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) championed calls for true open access. Across the hall, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N. Dakota), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) led the charge for Net Neutrality. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois experimented with legislation 2.0 when he opened the lines to public feedback to help him draft a much needed national broadband plan. As the United States continues to fall in international broadband rankings, policymakers trying to reverse the slide are a welcome change.

6. White Spaces Facts Beat Lobbyist Fictions

Last year, the FCC finally came to recognize the value of unlicensed spectrum, but it was not without a fight. The battle lines were drawn over the use of "white spaces" -- vast tracts of unused airwaves that sit between television channels. New technologies will allow us to use these idle frequencies to connect millions of Americans to high-speed Internet services, especially people living in rural areas.

The only hurdle is to convince the FCC to unshackle white spaces. A number of new technology providers have lined up to offer mobile devices that could deliver high-speed internet services over these airwaves. But, true to form, Big Media companies and their lobbyists at the National Association of Broadcasters erected a façade of misinformation to stifle innovation and prevent Americans from using our airwaves for our own good. In press release after press release the NAB claimed that these new technologies were interfering with adjacent channels, despite mounting evidence that showed their claims to be untrue.

2008 will bring decisive action on white spaces. It's increasingly hopeful that the truth will prevail over industry spin, and we will see this new technology emerge as an innovative alternative to phone and cable's broadband cartel.

7. Strange Bedfellows Join Against Net Censorship

Verizon's blocking of a NARAL Pro-Choice America text message sent to the group's members sparked an unusual alliance with the Christian Coalition of America. Seeing a greater threat to free speech, these traditional foes co-wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, calling on Congress to address censorship by phone companies and "guarantee the free flow of information."

The détente recalled 2006 when the Gun Owners of America joined with MoveOn.org to support Net Neutrality. "Without statutory Net Neutrality, there is nothing to prevent big telecom companies from injecting political bias into modern communications," the Gun Owners' Craig Fields said during a press conference with MoveOn.org. "If the telecoms believe they can frame opposition to their power grab as a liberal or anti-free-market attack, they are sadly mistaken."

Indeed, the fight for an open Internet involves supporters from every quarter with one glaring exception. Those opposing a neutral and accessible Internet seem limited to telco and cableco lobbyists and their paid allies. That open Internet protections are still disputed in Washington is a sad reflection of the degree to which these special interests dictate public policy in America.

8. Beyond the Beltway, Growing Grassroots Support

For too long spectrum and Internet policy has been the byproduct of backroom meetings between powerful industry lobbyists and government officials. In 2007, however, people discovered that Washington alone couldn't be relied upon alone to protect their online freedom. Whenever members of Congress returned to their districts, there was a good chance they were met by constituents speaking out for an open Internet.

All told last year, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition convened 70 meetings between citizens and their elected representatives. In June, more than a quarter-million people wrote Washington in support of open access to wireless spectrum. A public outcry overwhelmed the FCC in July when tens of thousands told the agency why Net Neutrality mattered to them. (Well over 95 percent of the comments received by the agency called for Net Neutrality protections.)

We saw user revolts on social networking sites after people discovered that their privacy was under attack. After a carefully orchestrated member protest, Facebook's CEO was forced to publicly apologize for Beacon, a company "service" that let others in on what users were buying online.

9. Public and Private Sector Unite Behind an Open Internet

The public and private sector realized that working together we could get Washington to take notice. Modeled after the SavetheInternet.com and Open Internet Coalitions of 2006, public advocates and businesses interests forged new alliances such as the Wireless Innovation Alliance (which is fighting for unlicensed use of "White Spaces"), the Wireless Founders Coalition (opening access to the airwaves), and the Open Handset Alliance (greater openness in the "mobile ecosystem").

As these and other coalitions focus on 2008, the unity of the public and private interests shows that openness is not only good for users but a boon for business.

10. The Dawning of Participatory Politics

While "Internet 2.0" jargon may have grown tired in 2007, a truly decentralized and participatory Internet became more real. Users took to available tools (and created some widgets of their own) on social networks -- such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube and others -- to organize others and make the Web experience their own.

More than a million Internet users fought the telcos to a stand still over Net Neutrality; campaigns rallied the youth vote and raised money on Facebook; bloggers were no longer treated as a political sideshow but helped shape many of the year's main events; people formed online social networks and fan sites around political causes, sharing potent YouTube videos, music and games that had the potential to be seen, heard or played by millions.

The tools needed to organize and act on our beliefs are becoming more accessible online. With them, we can have a public conversation about what the future of the Internet and our country should look like -- and finally gain an upper hand against the special interests that have dominated our democracy for generations.

Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007

A few years ago, President Bush pledged that every corner of America would have high-speed Internet by 2007. Well, the year is drawing to a close, and millions of Americans still do not have access. The United States has dropped from fourth to 15th in the world in broadband penetration in the past five years -- a result of a telco stranglehold on both broadband markets and broadband policy that puts their profits before innovation and the public good.

But that's not all. Even when Americans can get online, an open and neutral Internet is not guaranteed. In the past year, phone and cable companies have been throttling the free flow of information on the Internet and cell phones -- giving us a harrowing glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality.

A review of the 10 Worst Telco Moments of 2007 (in no particular order):

1. White House Declares 'Mission Accomplished' for the Internet

"We have the most effective multiplatform broadband in the world," the Bush administration's top technologist, John Kneuer, told skeptical Web experts and the media in June, despite several international surveys that place the United States far behind countries in Asia and Europe.

Kneuer says the real problem is not bad policy, but faulty data in the surveys. While the Bush White House seemed over eager to declare broadband success, America's failing report card told a story of a larger systems breakdown. "Previous generations put a toaster in every home and a car in every driveway as signs of economic progress," Sen. John Kerry wrote in September. "To stay competitive, we should strive to do the same with nationwide broadband." Let's hope our next president understands that ubiquitous broadband access needs to be more than a mirage

2. Telcos Spy on Millions of Americans

For several years now, the nation's largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own customers without a warrant. In the process, they delivered to the federal government the private records of millions of Americans. Their excuse -- national security in the face of a known terrorist threat -- holds little weight when one considers that they've been spying on us with the NSA well in advance of the September 11 attacks.

Now, they are pushing a bill -- "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" -- that would grant complicit phone companies retroactive amnesty from prosecution for violations of our civil liberties. While a few, brave senators have stood in the way of the bill and refused to let the telcos off the hook, the legislation still stands a good chance of getting through.

3. Comcast is Busted for Blocking BitTorrent

In October, an Associated Press investigation revealed that Comcast - technically a cableco - was secretly blocking peer-to-peer file sharing programs like BitTorrent and Gnutella. Comcast's blocking is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.

BitTorrent is rapidly emerging as one of the most successful online platforms for the sharing of large files. Comcast has a natural incentive to keep customers watching movies and television shows through their system, not the Internet.. Despite the evidence, Comcast's David Cohen told Ars Technica that Comcast does not block access to file sharing applications and that their practice is just "content shaping." In response, SavetheInternet.com members filed a petition urging the FCC to stop Comcast from blocking Internet traffic and fine them for their violations.

And what can you do if you find out that you've been blocked by Comcast? Switch to AT&T or Verizon and suffer with slow DSL speeds and their own draconian terms of service. Free Press has sifted through the agreements of several Internet and cell phone providers and found similar language that reserves their right to cut off users on a whim.

4. AT&T and Verizon Censor Free Speech

In September, Verizon Wireless blocked NARAL Pro-Choice America's efforts to send mobile text messages to its members. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.

A month earlier, during the live Lollapalooza webcast of a Pearl Jam concert, AT&T muted lead singer Eddie Vedder just as he launched into a lyric criticizing President Bush. AT&T launched its own bungled PR response after a flurry of criticism. But both companies refused to change internal policies which allowed them to censor in the future.

Their apologies aren't cutting it anymore. Censorship by AT&T and Verizon is further proof that these corporate giants simply cannot be left at the controls of Internet content. These same providers handed customer phone records over to the NSA without a subpoena and are now strong-arming Congress for retroactive immunity (see No. 2). And they want us to trust them with the Internet?

5. Caught Red-Handed, Telcos Change Their Tune

For some time, phone and cable companies and their shills and lobbyists had been spinning Net Neutrality as a "solution in search of a problem." But 2007 brought us a series of violations of Internet freedom which brought the "problem" into vivid relief for millions.

Undaunted, the shills quickly changed their tune, admitting that indeed some mistakes were made, but the telcos were merely implementing "reasonable network management" (aka content discrimination) to bring us the Internet that we all love and cherish. The moral of this story: Follow what the telcos do, not just what they say.

6. Media Insiders Suffer Telco-Vision

Don't always believe the purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington media. Some of these pundits are so steeped in their own "knowledge" that they get stuck spinning in place when faced with evidence to the contrary. This was the case for a chosen few who in 2007 hunkered down behind their laptops to write commentaries to convince the world that Net Neutrality was dead and gone. The issue is a "fading memory," one crowed. It "barely raises a yawn" said another.

Their view of the world, however, rarely extends beyond the Potomac, where the Net Neutrality issue was leading the news and being vigorously debated along the campaign trail. Indeed, Net Neutrality emerged as the No. 1 issue that thousands of visitors to TechPresident selected to be answered by all the presidential candidates. So the next time an insider tells you that Net Neutrality is dead, I advise you to check his pulse instead. Then point out the more than 1.5 million Americans who are taking action to protect the free and open Internet.

7. The iPhone Gets Shackled

The introduction of the iPhone over the summer highlighted both the promise and the problems of America's wireless marketplace. On the one hand, it demonstrated the promises of a truly mobile Internet. On the other hand, the iPhone raised serious questions about the fact that most every mobile phone consumer is locked into a long-term contracts, using a phone that has been "crippled" by carriers, with significant penalties for switching to a new provider.

The iPhone was shackled to AT&T. The reason? We have allowed carriers to exert almost complete gatekeeper control over all devices, services and content in the wireless sector -- a move that has left U.S. innovation generations behind other nations. Reviewing the state of the wireless market in America, New York Times blogger David Pogue called American carriers "calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts." Despite recent efforts to open devices, the lockdown of cell phones remains the dominant characteristic of most every user agreement in the country.

8. Bush's Justice Dept. Files Against Net Neutrality

In September, departing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales filed a brief with the Federal Communications Commission, urging the agency to oppose Net Neutrality. The DOJ stated that broadband companies like AT&T should be able to erect toll booths and filter traffic -- upending the even playing field that has made the Web an unrivaled engine of democratic discourse and new ideas.

The DOJ move once again proved the point: Powerful corporate and government gatekeepers are working together to dismantle Internet freedoms and impose their will upon the Web. By moving against Net Neutrality, Gonzales was merely pulling last-minute favors for friends in high places. Soon thereafter, Free Press submitted a FOIA request to shed light on the DOJ's recent hit job against Net Neutrality and uncover whether industry lobbyists or White House politics had a hand in this unusual action. We're still waiting for a response.

9. FCC's Rosy Broadband Report Wilts Under Scrutiny

In February, the FCC released its biannual report on the U.S. broadband market. On the surface, the numbers sounded good. High-speed Internet lines increased by 26 percent during the first half of 2006, and broadband was reportedly available in 99 percent of all U.S. ZIP codes. But the broadband reality is much darker. According to Free Press Research Director Derek Turner, the FCC used an "absurd standard" to measure broadband -- 200 kilobits per second. "That was barely fast enough to surf in 1999, but is far below what's needed to enjoy streaming video, VoIP, flash animation or other common Internet applications."

Indeed, speeds are much slower than what's available in the rest of the world. Half of all U.S. broadband connections are slower than 2.5 megabits per second -- yet in countries like Japan and South Korea, they're rolling out 100 megabit services. And there's no real competition. 98 percent of high-speed residential lines in America are provided by incumbent cable or telecom companies. Using ZIP codes alone vastly overstates the availability and competition for broadband services. While the FCC's data has been widely debunked, the telco lobby crowed that the FCC had proven beyond a doubt that the American broadband marketplace was a haven of free-market competition -- which leads us to our final "worst moment."

10. More Astroturf Sprouts Up, Speads Lies

Washington policymaking has spawned a cottage industry of phony front groups put in place by phone and cable companies eager to spread misinformation about anything that threatens their control over the network. Nowhere is this more evident than in their campaign to defeat open Internet initiatives.

Throughout the year, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have funneled millions of dollars toward "Astroturf" front groups such as the disingenuously named NetCompetition.org, Hands Off the Internet and The Future Faster. For example, Hands Off the Internet -- which sounds like a citizens group to protect the Internet from gatekeepers -- is actually a telco-backed lobbying group that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on video PSAs and "grassrootsy" Web campaigns aimed at eliminating efforts to restore Net Neutrality protections and spread open access.

True to form, these front groups spent much of 2007 cranking out phony PR, mouthing telco taking points and casting doubt against any effort to ensure that the Internet is open, neutral and free of interference by gatekeepers. And these groups aren't going away soon. Expect to see them on our worst moments list at the end of 2008.

-- Co-authored by Lynn Erskine

[Tune in next week for the Ten Best Open Internet Moments of 2007]

Martin's Tunnel Vision for Big Media

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is one shrewd operator. When it comes to media policy, this Bush-appointed bureaucrat will do whatever it takes to get it done his way. Unfortunately, Martin's way has nothing to do with his sworn duty to serve the public -- or pay attention to the facts.

It's more about his unyielding drive to allow the nations most powerful companies media conglomerates -- including Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and Sam Zell's Tribune Company -- to swallow up more of our local news outlets.

The Public's Last Stand?

His goal: lifting the longstanding "cross-ownership" ban that keeps one company from owning both the daily newspaper and radio or television stations in the same town. Martin is now attempting to jam through these radical rule changes to meet a self-imposed December deadline.

Why Martin is doing this is the subject of considerable speculation. It's certainly not because the public wants Big Media to gain control of more local news.

Damn the Public. Full Speed Ahead

Earlier this month the FCC convened the final of six public hearings to air out concerns about this proposed rule change. I have watched, listened to or attended all of these hearings and one thing is clear. The public is single-mindedly opposed to more media consolidation.

Martin himself admitted recently that he remembers "only one" public witness calling for relaxation of media ownership rules at these hearings.

This public opposition is not just evident in the passion of the thousands of people who testified against consolidation at FCC hearings in Seattle, Los Angeles, Nashville, Tampa, Harrisburg and Chicago. It's a fact reflected in the public record.

The last time the FCC tried to change the rules in 2003, millions of people contacted Congress and the FCC to oppose the changes, which were ultimately thrown out by the courts. My organization, Free Press, checked the public comments of those who have written the FCC since June 2006 and found that more than 99 percent opposed changing the rules.

Despite the massive outcry, Martin has not wavered in his rush to let loose a new wave of consolidation by the end of the year.

Damn the Evidence. Full Speed Ahead.

So, why does Martin remain determined to turn a blind eye to the public?

Stopping Big Media

It's not because the evidence suggests otherwise. On Nov. 13, Martin penned an op-ed in the New York Times, in which he argued that a "relatively minor loosening of the ban on cross-ownership of newspapers and TV stations," would help save the American newspaper from certain death.

In a new report released on Monday, Free Press found that Martin's claim that the newspaper is an "endangered species" is greatly exaggerated.

Consider this: Revenue per circulated newspaper copy increased from 2005 to 2006. Industry-wide, newspapers still enjoy operating profit margins near or above 20 percent -- higher than the S&P 500 average.

Recent mergers and acquisitions further demonstrate that newspapers remain highly valued properties. Prices paid for newspaper companies have been above 10 times cash flow, with average stock prices at eight times cash flow. These values are considered quite healthy by financial industry standards.

Damn Local Control. Full Speed Ahead.

There's more. Martin's FCC has claimed that cross-owned stations do more local news, but we found using the FCC's own data that markets with cross-owned stations produce fewer total minutes of local news.

Higher levels of local ownership lead to more local news at the market level, while increasing market concentration decreases the production of local news.

Martin is not unaware of this. The evidence was filed in the official FCC docket and presented to him by Free Press Research Director Derek Turner during an Oct. 31 localism hearing in Washington, D.C.

That's not all. In making his case for consolidation, Martin claims that the Internet has wrought considerable changes to the media marketplace. The stripping away of cross-ownership rules is essential to the survival of newspapers and broadcasters, he concludes.

This simply isn't true.

Only a small percentage of the public uses the Internet as their primary source for local news, and those that do are visiting the Web sites of their local broadcasters and newspapers. The Newspaper Association of America found that nearly 60 million Americans visited local newspaper Web sites during the second quarter of 2007 -- and that newspapers online readership has grown five-fold since 2000.

The challenge for newspapers is not to rewrite rules that would allow them to merge their newsrooms with those of local TV and radio stations. It's to figure out new and inventive ways to capitalize on the remarkable increase in online traffic to their sites.

Damn Diversity. Full Speed Ahead.

If that wasn't enough, there's a real bombshell in all of this. It's the FCC's charge to ensure diversity in media. But Martin's proposed new rules would make the glaring lack of diversity in media even worse.

Again, the evidence speaks for itself. According to a Free Press study from October 2006, people of color - representing a third of the nation's population -- own little more than 3 percent of commercial TV stations in the country.

What's worse, an updated analysis released today suggests that the future of minority TV station ownership is in jeopardy. From October 2006 to October 2007, African-American TV station ownership dropped by 60 percent -- falling from 19 stations to eight stations in just a single year.

The situation has become so precarious that Democratic FCC Commissioner Michael Copps called it a "national disgrace."

The real disgrace though is Martin's efforts to spawn further consolidation without addressing the lack of diversity with policies that foster more -- not fewer -- minority voices in the media.

Replacing Martin's own Rhetoric with Reality

Martin Accuses Others of Rhetoric

So there you have it. Overwhelming public passion agrees with the empirical data.

Can you think of any other policy issue where the evidence falls into such neat alignment with public opinion? The only thing standing in the way is one powerful man who has determined to ignore the facts and write another blank check to Big Media.

During the FCC's final public hearing in Seattle, Martin labeled as "rhetoric" the many speeches by those opposing media consolidation. But isn't rhetoric the final refuge of those who can't marshal facts to make their argument?

Above it all is the need to revitalize our media system in service of better democracy. The ideals of an open and free press that once set our nation apart from the rest have been ransacked for too long by corporate profiteers and fawning bureaucrats.

No matter what your political beliefs, bringing more diversity of ownership and local control to our media would help boost our ability to engage in the issues of our time.

That should seem obvious to everyone. The real challenge is to make public officials like Kevin Martin more accountable to the Americans he's supposed to serve.

Suckered By Astroturf

USA Today joins the illustrious list of news organizations to be taken for a ride by Astroturf.

In an article earlier this week, the paper's media beat reporter David Lieberman writes that the end of the Internet is nigh. It will start crashing down around us by the year 2010, he adds, citing a recent "study" by Nemertes Research.

The Not-So-Real Thing

The reason for our demise? We dastardly Net users have gone too far. According to Nemertes, we're not just sending email and surfing Web sites but also downloading and uploading data rich files like video and music. Net Neutrality would further unleash this unruly mass upon the Internet grinding the network to a halt.

"The Web will start to seem pokey," Lieberman writes, "as use of interactive and video-intensive services overwhelms local cable, phone and wireless Internet providers."

Saving Us from Ourselves

The underlying message is this: By taking control of our own media, users are straining the Net to the limit. The only way to save the Internet from the coming "exaflood," the report concludes, is to pay more federal money to the likes of AT&T and let them gut Net Neutrality protections so they can fix the problem.

The real problem here isn't the looming demise of the Internet, but USA Today's failure to question the motivations of its sources.

In their ceaseless efforts to become the gatekeepers to what we do online, the phone and cable companies funnel money to unscrupulous think tanks, which, in turn, churn out research, painting a picture of Internet Armageddon that can only be averted by giving the telcos exactly what they want: more money and control.

The Roots of Astroturf

In this case, Lieberman might have told readers that Nemertes is a wind-up research group funded by the Internet Innovation Alliance, an "Astrtoturf" group underwritten by AT&T.

"The IIA has been pushing the idea of a looming 'exaflood' for some time, with the primary goal being industry deregulation," writes Karl at Broadband Reports. "The argument being that if these companies don't get exactly what they want from lawmakers in Washington, the entire Internet collapses and we're back to using soup cans and string."

The USA Today story leaves readers with the impression that Nemertes reached its conclusion for the good of the public interest and not simply by following a script that was pre-ordained by the telcos.

Digging Beneath the Surface

Lieberman might have cited the several other reports and studies that claim the opposite.

Analysts at the D.C.-based market research firm TeleGeography, call "foolhardy" the idea that an exaflood "is going to break something or kill something." Video traffic and demand growth have been accounted for, he told CIO Insight, and “the network operators know how to scale.” TeleGeography research shows average global utilization of core Internet capacity in mid-2006 was only 34 percent, with peak utilization of 47 percent of available capacity.

Greg Collins, director of network and data center engineering for Earthlink Inc., added, "I don’t see anything specific in the way of capacity problems today, and my job is to manage capacity and growth in our network."

Recent research notes that investment in backbone upgrades is exploding, with just about every network operator already working on upgrades or planning to do so in the next year or so.

Recent figures from Infonetics Research find that telecom global capital expenditure will exceed $220 billion in 2007. "Carriers are obviously not short of money, but rather than spend it on new infrastructure, many are looking at less capital-intensive strategies to reduce the strain, such as bandwidth shaping," writes Dave Bailey of ITWeek. "This is carrier-speak for putting the brakes on your broadband connection, which is unlikely to go down well with most customers."

Michael Masnik of Techdirt sums it up: "If there's real demand for more capacity, there will be business models to support it, whether or not network neutrality is in place."

Duped and Duplicitous

These types of studies often boil down to pure posturing and polemic against Net Neutrality, bought and paid for by AT&T. When researchers stumble across inconvenient points, such as the current boom in infrastructure investment, they dismiss them in favor of doomsday scenarios and call for an end to the one rule that allows online users to innovate without permission.

USA Today is not alone. Reporters and editors from the New York Times, Forbes and the Wall Street Journal to Xinhua have been snared in Astroturf , taking at face value data from coin-operated research groups without digging into their bank accounts to sniff out the payola.

Journalists should know better. These corporations claim that lawmakers should grant them control of Internet to safeguard the best interests of all Americans. But since when was AT&T elected to determine what is best for us?

Net Neutrality's Second Coming

Don't always believe the purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington. Some of these DC pundits are so steeped in their own "knowledge" that they get stuck spinning their wheels when faced with evidence to the contrary.

This was the case for a few of Washington's finest who recently hunkered down behind their laptops to convince the world that Net Neutrality was dead and gone.

Greatly Exaggerated Rumors of a Death

The issue is a "fading memory," one crowed. It "barely raises a yawn" said another.

That Net Neutrality has remained a centerpiece of public activism outside the Beltway was lost on these naysayers.

The Road to Recovery

As any 12-step veteran can tell you, denial can be interpreted as a final cry for help. And more than one Potomac insider could use an intervention.

Fortunately, some of their colleagues have stepped in to report that the fight for Net Neutrality is alive and well. It's leading the news and being vigorously debated on the Hill and along the campaign trail.

Indeed, earlier today support for Net Neutrality emerged as the No. 1 issue that thousands of visitors to TechPresident had selected to be answered by all the presidential candidates. By Monday afternoon's count, more than twice as many people had voted for the Net Neutrality question over any other issue at 10Questions.com.

Sen. Barack Obama answered their question during a live forum on MTV. "Yes, I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality," he said, adding that discrimination "destroys one of the best things about the Internet -- which is that there is this incredible equality there."

On the Hill and in the Media

On Capitol Hill, both Republicans and Democrats have joined in a call for urgent congressional action in defense of Net Neutrality. Last Thursday, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) called for new hearings, citing recent incidents of blocking of cell-phone and Internet traffic.

The senators wrote that recent actions by Comcast and Verizon have raised "serious concern about the phone and cable companies' power to discriminate." They called upon the Senate Commerce Committee "to determine if they were based on legitimate business and network management policies or part of practices that would be deemed unfair and anti-competitive."

In less than two days, 10,000 activists wrote their members of Congress supporting the senators' call for hearings.

Net Neutrality has become the topic du jour among tech-forums and trade press as well, including prominent reports at SlashDot, Ars Technica, Consumerist, Machinist, BetaNews, WebProNews, GigaOm and, yes, even CNet News -- whose own DC navel gazer declared the "death of Net Neutrality" just a few weeks ago.

Gatekeepers in Need of a Solution

In mainstream press, Stephen H. Wildstrom, a senior technology writer and editor at BusinessWeek, wrote that he had shifted his position to support Net Neutrality following recent incidents of network gatekeeping. "The behavior of the top telecommunications companies, especially Verizon Communications and AT&T, has convinced me that more government involvement is needed to keep communications free of corporate interference," he wrote.

In the Washington Post, Rob Pegoraro wrote last week that customers ought to have a simple remedy in cases where the only Internet providers available attempt to block or slow their connections. "The network-neutrality debate will never go away as long as [the lack of choice in the ISP market] remains the case," he writes, "nor should it."

At the San Jose Mercury News, Vindu Goel writes that efforts to restore Net Neutrality protections had been unsuccessful in the absence of evidence that Internet providers were meddling with the free flow of information. He adds that all this has changed since Comcast began blocking peer-to-peer sharing.

"There was no real evidence that Internet providers were discriminating against any content," he concludes. "Now there is."

Life Beyond the Beltway

Net Neutrality has also been debated in recent issues of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal and in hundreds of new blog posts since early October.

So the next time some insider tells you that Net Neutrality is dead I advise you to check his pulse instead. Then point out the more than 1.5 million Americans - from every state and county across the nation -- who are taking action to protect the free and open Internet.

And if you can spare it, give him some change for bus fare and a map of the world beyond the Beltway.

Verizon's Crocodile Tears Mask a Threat to Democracy

You may have missed it in the fine print of your agreement. Phone companies like Verizon and AT&T reserve the right to block your free speech and terminate your cell phone services "without prior notice and for any reason or no reason."

That's chilling enough, but here's the shocker. There are no laws that prevent these giant companies from censoring your speech on their networks. That's right -- free speech ends at your cell phone.

Verizon's Gag Rule

This is why Verizon recently got away with blocking text messages that NARAL Pro-Choice America wanted to send to its members.

This begs the question: "If the phone company can’t tell you what to say on a phone call, then why should they be able to tell you what not to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else?"

They shouldn't. But don't tell that to Verizon.

Verizon Is So Very Sorry

On Wednesday, New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky called two senior Verizon lawyers to testify at a hearing on their company's recent censorship of NARAL.

The lawyers groveled before the Assemblyman and his colleagues. Verizon was so very, very sorry about the incident that they changed some "dusty policies" so that this particular mistake would never, ever happen again. But when pressed they refused to relinquish their company's authority to censor other speech over their networks.

Verizon apologies should provide little comfort. Free Press has sifted through the agreements of several Internet and cell phone providers -- including Verizon and AT&T -- and found explicit language that reserves their right to cut off, block or permanently cease to provide services to anyone -- and for no reason.

Imagine that. Free speech over networks used by more than 230 million Americans can be denied at the whim of a Verizon and AT&T -- the same companies, by the way, which are now seeking retroactive immunity for illegally wiretapping Americans and handing over the results to the government.

A Wild West View of the Internet

Verizon's two lawyers went one further. They told Assemblyman Brodsky that their company should be free from any and all regulatory restraints. Above the law. Americans should simply trust that Verizon will do what's best for everyone -- as the Internet's sheriff, gatekeeper and undertaker all rolled into one.

So, do you trust Verizon to serve your interests?

Internet, email and text messaging are a final refuge for free speech -- at a time when other "mass media" have become the domain of a handful of powerful companies. We can't let the Internet slip into the hands of the same types of gatekeepers that now control most of what we see and hear over television and radio.

Policies not Apologies

Sen.Dorgan Takes a Stand

It's clear that the fundamental democratic principles of free speech and open communications are too important to entrust to corporate gatekeepers like these.

Lawmakers need to take decisive action to protect the free flow of information over 21st Century communications. The most important free-speech principle in communications law is nondiscrimination; and its most important application is Net Neutrality.

There are a few bright lights in all this telco darkness. One is Sen. Byron Dorgan who on Wednesday called for a congressional investigation into censorship on cell phones and the Internet. Earlier this year Dorgan joined with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine to introduce