Will Martin Really Free the iPhone?

Imagine our surprise this morning when we read that FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wants to transform the 700MHz band into a "truly open broadband network."

In articles seeded in both USA Today and Wall Street Journal, Martin indicated that he's siding with consumers to bring real openness, choice and innovation to the wireless world.

If true, this new position would mark a seismic shift for the chairman, who has routinely sided with the phone and cable cartel that controls wireless and wired Internet access for most Americans -- and against popular public positions on Net Neutrality and "open access."

But appearances can be deceiving.

Former AT&T boss Ed Whitacre chats up Martin

"Whoever wins this spectrum has to provide ... truly open broadband network," Martin told USA Today Monday night, "one that will open the door to a lot of innovative services for consumers."

According to Martin this means "you can use any wireless device and download any mobile broadband application, with no restrictions." You know what they say about things that sound to good to be true.

Has the Public Message Finally Gotten Through?

In June, more than a quarter million SavetheInternet.com supporters put the chairman on the spot when they flooded the FCC with comments and urged Martin to open these airwaves to wholesale access providers and Net Neutrality.

On the surface, it appears that Martin has heard these concerns, abandoned his cozy relationship with the phone companies and sided with the public on behalf of an open Internet.

Upon closer inspection, however, Martin's "plan" raises reasonable doubts.

Martin is reportedly going to circulate his "open access" proposal at the agency later today. But according to experts I spoke with today, Martin's version of "open access" falls far short of the ideal.

Martin Spins 'Open Access'

In May, Free Press, Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, Media Access Project and others called upon the FCC to implement an "open access" model that included Net Neutrality conditions for content and applications and permitted third parties to access the network as wholesalers and provide a wide variety of wireless broadband services and access alternatives.

Our open model would foster new and non-discriminatory high-speed wireless services to compete head-to-head with the telephone companies. It would free up the network so the next generation of iPhones won't have to kowtow to the likes of AT&T, Sprint and Verizon -- companies that now seek to "cripple" any functions that compete with their entrenched business interests. True open access would allow the next Google or small company with the next big idea to offer its services on a level playing field - unencumbered by these gatekeepers.

Martin's proposal reportedly will call for a limited "Wireless Carterfone" rule on some of the licenses in the 700 MHz band. Carterfone refers to the landmark 1968 decision that allowed competing devices to be connected directly to the AT&T network. Until then AT&T had complete control not over the telephone network itself but also over all devices (their trademark black rotary phone) that users could attach to it.

The Carterfone ruling opened up the market to numerous products, including answering machines, fax machines, cordless phones, computer modems and launched a new industry in innovative phone devices.

Such rules for the wireless network make perfect sense but they don't solve the competition problem. They don't address wholesaling or Net Neutrality, and are a far cry from true open access.

A Well-timed PR Offensive?

So to what extent does Martin's plan create a "truly open broadband network"?

His may be little more than a politically calculated gesture that sounds appealing in the media but delivers little to none of the urgent reforms needed to revitalize the nation's flagging Internet marketplace.

Public Knowledge's Art Brodsky called Martin's moves at USA Today and the Journal "impeccable" spin. Harold Feld of Media Access Project called it Martin's "PR Offensive."

"Martin and his staff made it appear as if the Commission was about to embark on a new, glorious age for consumers," Brodsky wrote, adding that the definition Martin uses for "open access" is far different than what's truly needed to foster real innovation and openness in the marketplace.

Martin floated his plan in advance of a Wednesday's House Telecom Subcommittee hearing on open-access and the iPhone. It's unclear whether this well-timed media play will derail efforts in Washington to create a network that is more open, neutral and accessible for everyone.

We certainly hope not.

Report Revealing Talk Radio Bias Touches Nerve on the Right

Originally published at Huffington Post

A study released on Wednesday by Free Press and the Center for American Progress lays bare what is obvious to many: Talk radio is a chorus of right-wing voices.

"The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" found that 91 percent of weekday talk formats are given over to right-wing programming. No surprise, really, but good to have further evidence.

What's more revealing is the report's discovery that radio's absence of real fairness and balance is a byproduct of problems in the way federal regulators dole out access to our public airwaves.

Big media lobbyists have struck a cozy bargain with allies on the Federal Communications Commission to gut ownership limits that protect localism, diversity and competition on the airwaves. For their part, the FCC has shown almost complete disregard for the public interest requirements written into broadcasters' licenses.

It's the Structure, Stupid

Here's the rub. The lack of ownership diversity spawned by this structural failure at the FCC is perhaps the single most potent ingredient in the often caustic right-wing tilt of the radio dial.

Free Press analyzed all 10,506 licensed commercial radio stations to find that stations owned by women, minorities or local owners are statistically less likely to air conservative hosts or shows. But stations controlled by group owners -- those with more than three stations in a single market or that own stations in multiple towns -- were statistically more likely to air conservative talk.

"Off the Dial," a Free Press report released earlier this month, revealed a dismally low level of minority ownership of radio stations in America. While racial or ethnic minorities account for one-third of the U.S. population, they own just 7.7 percent of all commercial broadcast radio stations. (Women, who make up half the population, own less than 6 percent of full-power stations.)

The Free Press report also found that no minority-owned stations aired "Imus in the Morning" at the time of its cancellation. Moreover, minority-owned stations and minority-owned talk and news format stations were significantly less likely to air "The Rush Limbaugh Show."

Taken together, the stark findings raise legitimate concerns about whether the companies licensed to broadcast over the public airwaves are serving the listening needs and interests of all Americans.

Right-Wing Knees Jerk

Malkin: Spreading fear over the facts

The reports' authors recommend ways to bring more voices to talk radio. They conclude we need to restore caps on the ownership of commercial radio stations and ensure greater local accountability for broadcast license holders.

The policy proposals are in no way a call for censorship or the removal of any voice from the airwaves. On the contrary, they would result in more localized and diverse types of programming. Their aim is to restore the pact between broadcasters and their listeners: In exchange for licenses worth billions of dollars, you will address the concerns of the community across which your radio signals are beamed.

This simple prescription for more diverse, democratic and accountable radio programming has set off a firestorm among the more rabid wing of the conservative blogosphere.

The release of the report over at ThinkProgress.org was flooded by nearly 4,000 comments, most from the angry right. Their near total failure to address the substance of the report was matched only by the shrillness of their comments.

The hyperventilating pundit Michelle Malkin, who's known the world over for routinely getting things wrong, joined many of her colleagues in mis-characterizing the report and its authors as calling for the Fairness Doctrine to be restored.

In reality, they never argue for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, which required broadcasters devote airtime to important and controversial issues and provide contrasting views on these issues. The report specifically states that the Fairness Doctrine "was never, by itself, an effective tool to ensure the fair discussion of important issues."

More Voices a Rallying Cry for Everyone

The report has clearly touched a raw nerve among these folks. Perhaps their attack is prompted more out of fear than anger. Fear of a media system that better reflects the diversity of the Americans it's supposed to serve -- and one that is less of an echo chamber for those that now control what millions of people hear when they scan the dial.

"Our goal is not less speech, it's more speech," said Ben Scott, policy director for Free Press and co-author of the report. "We want more voices on the radio."

Isn't conservatism all about localism? What could be more local than radio programming that's rooted in the community?

This sort of independence and diversity in the media should be a rallying cry for true conservatives and not cause for division and alarm.

FCC Commissioner Takes Brave Stand for Open Access

FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein has taken a stand for open access to our airwaves as the federal agency prepares to announce rules for the upcoming “700 auction.”

The move paves the way for better, more open and affordable access to the Internet for tens of millions of Americans. It’s now up to the remaining four commissioners to follow Adelstein’s strong lead.

Adelstein Leads the Way

"We need to identify meaningful spectrum on which to establish an open-access environment," Adelstein told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday. "This will open these key airwaves to badly needed competition.

Momentum Builds for Open Access

The commissioner joins other prominent politicians and decision makers, including presidential candidate John Edwards and Sen. John Kerry, who are joining the call for more open, neutral and competitive Internet marketplace in America

The outcome of the auction and ultimate use of these new airwaves have revolutionary consequences. This valuable slice of airwaves could beam cheap, high-speed Internet signals to every park bench, schoolroom, workplace, and home in America. It could deliver essential wireless services to communities that have been overlooked by the cable and phone incumbents, which control high-speed Internet access for more than 96 percent of residential American users.

While rules governing this valuable slice of spectrum are complex, the issue captured the attention of more than a quarter-million Americans who earlier this month called on the FCC to open these airwaves.

Ending the Spectrum Swindle

For too long spectrum use has been the byproduct of back channel maneuvering between powerful industry lobbyists and government officials.

Dominant phone companies, including AT&T and Verizon, seem intent on hording this valuable asset. If their actions at earlier spectrum auctions are any guide, they will seek to team up against bidding by new entrants and stifle competitive and cheaper alternatives to their overpriced services.

The FCC must determine that the sale of spectrum be structured to foster new entrants in an Internet access marketplace that lacks real consumer choice and competitive pricing. Open, neutral access is the answer.

Members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition — including Consumers Union, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Free Press — have urged the FCC to ensure that the upcoming auction sets aside at least half of the available spectrum for “open networks.”

In addition, more than 40 leading technologists, wireless innovators, civic organizations and others sent a joint letter to the FCC calling for a sizable portion of the airwaves to be licensed on an “open access” basis to usher more competition into the marketplace.

Accepting the Webby

Here I accept the 2007 Webby Award for the best activism Web site, SavetheInternet.com, earlier this month.

As some may know the Webby Awards only allow five-word acceptance speeches.

Ironically, the sponsor of the award category was long-time foe Verizon Communications.

My five words: "Verizon Doesn't Own the Internet"

That's Rob Corddry over my right shoulder. He laughed. The crowd cheered for about three seconds. They wouldn't let me take the trophy home.

Momentum Builds for 'Open Access' to the Airwaves

Originally published on Huffington Post

Members of the Congress on Thursday came out for "open access" during a Senate hearing on the auction of the "700 megahertz band."

While rules governing this valuable slice of spectrum are complex, the issue captured the attention of more than a quarter-million Americans who last week called on the FCC to use these airwaves to create more open, neutral and affordable Internet access.

Opening the Airwaves Now a Public Concern

The licensing of our airwaves should be publicly debated. For too long spectrum use has been the byproduct of back channel maneuvering between powerful broadcast and telecommunications lobbyists and government officials.

The FCC's Choice

Today's Commerce Committee hearing provided hopeful evidence of a shift towards more transparency and accountability. During the hearing, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) stated, "open access proposals and innovative bidding rules must be closely considered" before the FCC sets rules that will guide the sell off of our airwaves.

>> Read Sen. Kerry's guest blog post at SavetheInternet.com

The FCC faces a critical choice for the future of the Internet. The auction is a chance to ensure that all Americans have access to high-speed Internet. The current business model – a marketplace dominated by cable and phone companies -- has failed. We need open networks to better foster new entrants and innovation while driving down costs to consumers.

The 700 MHz band could beam high-speed Internet signals to every park bench, schoolroom, workplace and home in America. Cable and phone companies would rather the FCC allows then to rig the spectrum auction so that they can scoop up licenses and continue to dominate Internet access.

Why Verizon Wants Closed Access

Verizon executive vice president Dick Lynch attempted to scare Senators off the idea, telling them today that "saddling the auction with open access and Net Neutrality obligations would reduce interest" among businesses interested in leasing our airwaves.

His concerns are clear if not directly stated. The only ones who stand to lose from opening the network to new competitors are phone and cable companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast -- the same companies, by the way, that exert near monopoly control over access for more than 96 percent of residential broadband users.

"Open access" principles make the network available on a wholesale basis to new entrants, services and applications. We would all benefit from a marketplace that is freed of gatekeeper controls.

>> For more on how gatekeepers stifle innovation, read Dr. Amol Sarva's Senate testimony

The Momentum Shift

At the hearing today, Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) called the auction a "revolution of the communications landscape." Sen. Kerry's statements followed his editorial yesterday in The Hill urging the FCC to "establish auction rules that maximize the likelihood of innovation and ease competitive entry."

Last month, presidential candidate John Edwards called on the FCC to "seize the chance to transform the Internet and the future" by requiring that half of the soon-to-be-available public airwaves be reserved for open access.

And last week, a group of more than 40 leading technologists, wireless innovators, civic organizations and others sent a joint letter to the FCC calling for a sizable portion of the airwaves to be licensed on an "open access" basis to usher more competition into the marketplace.

Members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition -- including Consumers Union, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and Free Press -- have also urged the FCC to ensure that the upcoming auction sets aside at least half of the available spectrum for "open networks." Last week, more than 250,000 members of MoveOn.org Civic Action, Free Press and Working Assets Wireless, alongside other concerned citizens, contacted the FCC with similar concerns.

In the midst of all the details, lobbying and testimony, we can't lose sight of why this auction matters. This may be our best opportunity to ensure universal, affordable Internet for everyone.

Sen. Kerry: Open the Airwaves for a Better Internet

Originally published at Huffington Post

Sen. John Kerry joined the broad public movement for a better wireless Internet today when he urged the Federal Communications Commission to ensure that our airwaves be used to make the Internet "more competitive, affordable and widespread."

Sen. Kerry: Don't Let Them Hoard the Airwaves

Last week, the FCC was flooded with more than a quarter-million letters from people who urged the agency to use soon-to-be-available public airwaves to connect more Americans to an open, neutral and accessible Internet.

In a June 12 letter delivered to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, Kerry wrote: "Competition [in America] has been insufficient to drive the innovation that brings faster speeds, next generation applications and a richer, diverse and multifaceted Internet."

Our Chance to Catch the World

In the letter, Senator Kerry cited recent reports showing the United States has fallen behind much of the world in broadband penetration.

"Nearly 60% of the country does not subscribe to broadband service -- in large measure because it is either unavailable or unaffordable," Kerry wrote. "The 700 MHz auction could put this country one step closer to achieving ubiquitous Internet access throughout America."

Cheaper and Faster: An ad in Spain touting 20 megabits per second at 6 Euros ($8.02) a month

The failure of broadband services in the United States is due to a marketplace failure -- where phone and cable companies provide access to more than 96% of residential high-speed Internet users.

"For years, we have heard that a third technology would emerge to compete head-to-head with DSL and cable modem," Kerry wrote. "It has not yet materialized, and today Americans pay as much as 10 times more than broadband consumers in Asia and Europe. Worse still, competition has been insufficient to drive the innovation that brings faster speeds, next generation application and a richer, diverse and multifaceted Internet."

An Open and Neutral Alternative

As the FCC considers rules to govern the upcoming 700 MHz spectrum auction, SavetheInternet.com members have called upon the agency to set aside at least half of the available spectrum for open and nondiscriminatory Internet access.

This will guarantee new wireless innovators have the opportunity to enter the market in head-to-head competition with the big phone and cable companies.

Used correctly, these public airwaves could beam high-speed Internet signals to every park bench, schoolroom, workplace and home in America. Incumbent phone and cable companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast want to lock in their market dominance by hoarding spectrum and stifling cheaper alternatives to their networks.

The FCC: Choosing Between Telcos and the Public Interest

The FCC can either decide to open these airwaves to new competitors and innovation or let them be squandered by the same companies that now monopolize access.

The agency must create conditions that will foster a cheaper, more widespread alternative, Kerry wrote to Martin. "We cannot allow this spectrum to be hoarded by large companies who don't intend to use it, which stifles innovation and the growth of competitive networks."

"Dramatically expanding wireless broadband may not be the silver bullet that solves all of our broadband challenges," he added. "But it will certainly be a big step in the right direction."

Big Ed: Gone But Not Forgotten

AT&T chief Ed Whitacre handed the keys over to his replacement Randall Stephenson yesterday, but not before giving a rousing pep talk to fellow executives in the company's San Antonio board room. We just received "exclusive" video of the AT&T chairman's parting speech.

>> Watch Big Ed's Swan Song

Ed Whitacre Bids Fond Farewell: Watch the Video

"There's a problem. It's called Net Neutrality," Whitacre told the heirs to AT&T's telecommunications empire. "Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We're gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission."

This statement echoes those made in the press by Whitacre and Stephenson over the last two years.

Despite claims of poverty whenever pressed to offer better services, these AT&T execs are privately gloating over more than $35 billion in gross profits over the last 12 months. Moreover, Whitacre (and now Stephenson) are pressuring Congress to allow them to provide privileged Web access to their customers to companies that pay them a special fee.

The phone and cable companies claim that this sort of discriminatory “double dipping” — charging both consumers and content providers — is necessary to provide the high-speed services that Americans demand. But it's a fundamental shift in the neutral way the Internet has always worked. In essence, it takes away user choice — the most basic tenet of the Internet -- and hands it to AT&T.

"Will Congress let us do it?" Whitacre asks his colleagues. "You bet they will -- cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it 'deregulation.' "

'Deregulation': AT&T Code for More Handouts

It's Whitacre's brand of "deregulation" that has left the United States behind other nations in providing fast, affordable Internet to more people.

Recent broadband data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) had the U.S. slipping to 15th out of 30 nations in per capita broadband use. Our free-fall will continue as long as we allow phone and cable companies to dictate broadband policy in Washington and monopolize broadband access across the country.

From his high perch atop AT&T, Whitacre's view of the Internet had more to do with plumping up margins than delivering faster, more open and affordable services to more Americans. He understood that to dominate new media, AT&T needed to exploit its control of this "last mile" of broadband access into tens of millions of American homes. To get there, he was more than willing to scrap the fundamental principle that had made the Internet a beacon for free speech and economic innovation.

Such corporate brinksmanship, however, didn't sit well with those of us who actually use the Internet to connect with others. (Whitacre reportedly had no computer on his desk and tasked his secretary to check his email). Whitacre probably never expected he'd collide with a new but resilient foe -- engaged Internet users -- and ignite a brushfire that would forever alter the debate about the future of the Internet.

Igniting the Netroots

For speaking out about his scheme to control the Web, Whitcare can be credited for forging a forceful opposition to business as usual in Washington policymaking. His words galvanized the first groups that would forge an alliance around the issue of Net Neutrality.

By the summer of 2006, hundreds of groups from across the political spectrum had joined. More than 1.5 million online activists signed a petition to Congress, and thousands of bloggers took up the cause. This unlikely alliance, in the words of Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), instilled the "fear of voters" in the hearts of Washington politicians.

Yet even now, Whitacre remains intent to defy public opinion, funnel cash into Washington and win over control of the Internet once and for all.

"With all of our generous campaign contributions, I'm quite certain that Congress will see it our way," he said during his farewell speech. "Who else they gonna listen to? The public?!?"

Fortunately for everyone else, the public is making itself heard. Just yesterday we flooded the FCC with more than a quarter-million comments demanding that our airwaves be made available for a more open, ubiquitous and cheap Internet. We also called on the federal agency to keep this valuable new resource out of the hands of price-gouging phone and cable companies like AT&T.

Thousands more are telling their stories to the FCC, taking action to ensure that phone and cable companies do not block, interfere with or discriminate against any lawful Internet traffic.

The stories are still pouring in as more people take this issue to heart, demanding that we create a faster, affordable, more democratic Internet for everyone and stop one of the country's most powerful corporate lobbies from setting the agenda in Washington.

Internet Revolution is in the Air

I’m guessing that few people are aware that the future of communications in our country rests on a seemingly arcane decision on how we sell off soon-to-be vacated TV airwaves.

The Public Airwaves for the Public Good

These airwaves have the capacity to deliver high-speed Internet signals almost everywhere in the country. In the next couple of weeks, the Federal Communications Commission will decide how this air is to be auctioned off.

The government hopes that revenues from the sale of this "spectrum" (anticipated to be as high as $30 billion) will help pay down the national deficit, especially high since we went to war in Iraq

Yesterday, many members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition came forward with a proposal: Let's use these airwaves to make the Internet more neutral, open and affordable for everyone.

Most people haven't heard about this, or know that such valuable airwaves are up for grabs. But it is important stuff.

Here's where things stand:

This broad slice of spectrum once beamed the Brady Bunch, The Cosby’s, Charlie’s Angels and the A-Team into tens of millions of homes. The inevitable switch from analog to digital TV means that this precious air is now available for other uses.

The Federal Communications Commission is now deciding how to structure its sale (actually lease) to wireless vendors. The federal agency has the power to attach conditions to the use of our air; As it's public domain, we have the right to demand that it serve the public interest.

If used right, this new spectrum could revolutionize the ways we connect to one another -- and to laptops, cell phones, PDAs, music players and other mobile Internet devices.

It can also deliver a wireless Internet into your house without the need for a telephone wire or cable modem. Its signal passes through concrete buildings and over mountains; and can connect tens of million of Americans that are now ignored by wire-line Internet "incumbents" such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

Here's the rub. Phone and cable lobbyists from these same companies are pressuring the FCC to hand over our airwaves to their bosses. They plan to horde spectrum and stifle competitive and cheaper alternatives to their legacy networks.

This would be a disaster. After years of phone and cable company control over our Internet marketplace, the United States has fallen to 15th in the world in high-speed Internet rankings, with few choices and some of the highest prices for the slowest speeds in the world. We will continue to fall as long as we let phone and cable execs dictate Internet access for more than 96 percent of American users.

It's really important that we spread the word and get more people involved in telling the FCC how our spectrum should be used.

We don't want more of the same. These airwaves should be employed for the public good. They should be used to develop a wireless alternative to the telephone-cable market duopoly.

Yesterday, some SavetheInternet.com member groups -- including Consumer Federation of America, Free Press, Media Access Project, Public Knowledge and US PIRG -- urged the FCC "to ensure that new spectrum is offered on an open and nondiscriminatory basis." (You can read their full filing by clicking here.)

With open networks, the rest of the world has rapidly adopted high-speed, Internet platforms for education, economic innovation, creativity and civic participation. Countries like South Korea, Japan, France, Canada have leapfrogged the United States and now offer faster Internet connections at far lower prices.

It's time we caught up.

>> To learn more about the upcoming auction, read these recent articles in Wired Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, Forbes Magazine and MyDD.

Gore: Neutrality the Key to Internet Democracy

Former Vice President Al Gore extols the virtues of Net Neutrality in his newly released book "The Assault on Reason," writing "neutrality should be the central tenet that will set us on a path toward an open, democratic Internet where free speech and free markets are encouraged."

Gore applauds the grassroots efforts of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, whose many supporters used the Internet to save the Internet: "When the first skirmishes over net neutrality were fought in 2006, many in the Internet community who agree with the point of view I share mobilized and used the tools they had available on the Internet to defend its independence."

Fighting on Our Side for a Neutral Web

At that time, supporters were posting dozens of homemade videos on YouTube. College students created Facebook communities that grew to include tens of thousands of people while others crafted fliers and handed them out at their student unions. The movement had taken a life of its own – one that was limited only by the creativity of our online supporters.

Robin "Roblimo" Miller made one such video in his Florida back yard where he sums it up well: "The whole point of Net Neutrality is not Google. It's not Yahoo. It's about me and my little video here and you and any video that you might shoot getting out in an easy and fast and efficient manner."

Gore calls on Congress to lead the charge in protecting neutrality:

"More than one and a half million citizens contacted Congress and more than eight hundred organizations joined the SavetheInternet Coalition, organized by the upstart media reform organization Free Press, using innovative online mobilization tactics ... The public is finally involved in the debate about the future of the Internet and many are organizing to shape that debate."

Gore concludes in the final pages of his book that the key to redeeming our democracy is to ensure that we all are "well and fully connected" to an open, neutral and robust public Internet forum.

"I truly believe the most important factor is the preservation of the Internet's potential for becoming the new neutral marketplace of ideas that is so needed for the revitalization of American democracy," he writes. "People are not only fighting for free speech online, but they are also working to keep the Internet a decentralized, ownerless medium of mass communication and commerce."

As Gore's book climbs the best seller list, we can only hope that more Americans join this call for a more neutral, democratic and accessible Internet.

What's Wrong in Illinois

We were stunned earlier this week to see a group of Illinois lawmakers break rank with the public interest to side with a powerful media conglomerate that is fighting rules that ban it from owning newspapers and television stations in the same town .

In a May 18 letter to FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, more than a dozen members of Illinois' congressional delegation urged him to give his "personal attention" to a Tribune Company request for waivers from rules that protect diversity of news in local markets.

Durbin: Against Big Media Until He Was For It

What's particularly surprising is that some who signed this letter for Big Media last week were the same members that spoke out against it back in 2003.

The waivers are a linchpin in Chicago real estate mogul Sam Zell's effort to take over the Tribune. The deal rests on transferring several contested broadcast licenses from Tribune Company to the new owner. Of particular concern are broadcast licenses in Los Angeles, Hartford, New York and Miami where the company owns both a local daily newspaper and at least one local television station. While the law forbids such "cross-ownership," Chairman Martin has a history of making special exemptions for friends in consolidated media.

It's disappointing to see others in Congress following Martin's lead and putting political expediency before their constituents needs for more diverse and competitive media.

Among those signing the letter was Illinois' senior Senator Dick Durbin, Chicago-based Representative Bobby Rush, both Democrats, and District 11 Representative Jerry Weller, a Republican.

These three are the same members who in 2003 voted for a Joint Resolution to reprimand Michael Powell's F.C.C. for loosening the last limits to runaway media consolidation; Durbin actually co-sponsored the 2003 resolution.

So what caused the sudden change of heart?

These elected representatives apparently buckled to pressure from a powerful Illinois lobby -- which also happens to own the state's most influential newspaper and television stations - and sold out earlier commitments to a more democratic and diverse media system.

Members of Congress can no longer pay lip service to media reform and then turn around to grant special favors to Big Media.

One positive note: Illinois' other senator, Barack Obama, is conspicuous by his absence in the letter. Earlier this year Obama joined Senator Kerry of Massachusetts to call on the FCC to address the lack of minority, women and small business owners in the U.S. media system before taking any action that would allow Big Media to get even bigger.

"The goals of promoting minority, women, and small business ownership in the communications industry are set forth in the Communications Act of 1934," they wrote. "Ensuring that such directives are accomplished is important to achieving a diverse media, particularly in an era of increased media concentration."

It's good to see that some members of Congress are sticking to their principles.

Mr. YouTube Goes to Washington

Chad Hurley, chief executive and co-founder of YouTube, went to Washington this week to testify on behalf of an open Internet. Hurley told members of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet that a non-discriminatory Internet was the key to the success of YouTube and other Web innovations.

>> Watch our video blog featuring Hurley and others

Mr. YouTube Goes To Washington: Watch the Video

Because of an open Internet YouTube was able to solve people's problems with creating and sharing online video, he said.

"We were able to develop a service that was able to compete with [others] in the market. And because of that we have been able to provide a service that has been helpful for people and able to spur innovation in the video market online."

Neutrality Sparks Innovation

Hurley was joined at the witness table by Blake Krikorian, chairman and CEO of Sling Media. Krikorian told the subcommittee that the success of his businesses was contingent upon the open and neutral architecture of the Internet. "Because of the open Internet ... we were able to develop a service that could compete with [much larger] competitors in the market," Hurley said.

If he had gone to venture capitalists with a plan that said he needed to first gain approval from network providers like AT&T, "we would have just been kicked in the pants out the door," Krikorian said, adding:

"Things are being created every day that none of us ever thought about before. Without having that open flexibility there's just no way in heck this stuff could ever come to life."

Making the Next YouTube Possible

"I think the future of video will depend ... on how we resolve" the issue of Net Neutrality, Rep. Anna Eshoo of California told the witnesses. "Consumers must be able to access that content in the manner in which they choose."

After the hearing, Hurley told subcommittee chairman Ed Markey that an open Internet allowed YouTube to start its business. "We were on the same playing field as everyone else on the Internet, starting out of our garage working on this project," he said, adding:

"Because of that we were able to compete. At the same time consumers had the same ability to upload content on our site, to view content on our site without anyone discriminating."

Hurley and Krikorian's comments echo those made before them by World Wide Web inventor Sir Tim Berners Lee.

Net Neutrality has allowed the Internet to become a true competitive marketplace with low barriers to entry, equal opportunity and consumer choice.

This open architecture will allow the next Googles, YouTubes and eBays of the world to emerge out of dorm rooms or garages or anywhere else where creative ideas are born.

If you remove Net Neutrality from the Internet you remove this economic creativity. The market tilts in favor the networks gatekeepers and against real innovation.

Next week subcommittee chair Markey plans to convene a panel of witnesses to discuss ways to better map Broadband penetration in America to find better ways to get open and broadband to more people. Stay tuned.

'Consumer' Group Fails Smell Test

A shadowy "consumer" group emerged from obscurity today to bleat about the dangers of Net Neutrality. And no sooner had their press release hit the PR Newswire than a chorus of industry apologists began waving it around as proof positive that Net Neutrality is a cancer on the Internet.

That the shills have circled alone should be evidence that something here doesn't quite smell right. That this group is little known to the established consumer groups that form the SavetheInternet.com Coalition should set off every olfactory alarm.

Sock Puppet Alert: Stephen Pociask drops a load on PR Newswire

And so it has. Bob Williams who blogs for the Consumers Union was the first to cry foul.

"We had no idea that Net Neutrality -- the concept of preventing Internet providers from speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination -- would be so devastating to consumers," Williams writes in a sincerity-laced response to the American Consumer Institute's report against Net Neutrality.

"Like nearly every other major consumer group, we here at Consumers Union have been under the impression that Net Neutrality would actually benefit consumers."

The ACI report claims that protecting Net Neutrality would "force millions of Americans to drop their broadband subscriptions." It says that this would amount to $69 billion (Not $68 billion. Not $70 billion. $69 billion!) in lost benefits to consumers.

It was the name of the report's author that caused Williams' nose to twitch:

The contact name on the American Consumer Institute press release was Stephen Pociask. The name rang a bell with us, but we weren't sure why. But a quick Google search jogged our memory. Pociask is a telecommunications industry consultant and a former chief economist for Bell Atlantic, which these days is known as Verizon.

I went to the ACI site to confirm. Pociask's bio was posted by ACI, but surpisingly they failed to mention his work as a telco's chief economist.

How can that be? The American Consumer Institute claims that they do not accept any financial support from corporations. "We only accept assistance from individual consumers and consumer groups," they claim. "The Institute depends on volunteers, particularly those with significant public policy expertise."

I'm curious. Who might these contributing "consumer groups" be? And do THEY accept money from corporations. Also, if ACI isn't paying their "volunteers," who is?

A quick online check reveals that the ACI's Web site is actually registered to the same Stephen Pociask, who still works in the telecom industry as a paid consultant.

ACI describes itself as "an independent consumer organization dedicated to improving the lives of American consumers." But its list of experts includes people with deep ties to the telecommunications industry.

Broadband Reports dug a little further and concluded that reports like ACI's "are ultimately gobbled up by lazy journalists for injection into the broader discourse as objective fact."

AT&T's New Boss Wants Your World Delivered to Him

Originally published at Huffington Post

Soon after AT&T chief Ed Whitacre announced his plans to accept his company's $161 million retirement offer, the phone colossus announced Big Ed's replacement.

Randall Stephenson, onetime SBC Chief Operating Officer, will attempt to fill the shoes of the man who once called all of us "nuts" for thinking the Internet should remain free from phone company discrimination.

Whitacre Version 2.0

But this apple clearly hasn't fallen far from the tree. Echoing his predecessor, Stephenson was quoted in an industry newsletter saying: "Oh no. We're going to control the video on our network. The content guys will have to make a deal with us."

Stephenson's statement makes it clear that he intends to carry forward Whitacre's plan to block or degrade high-speed content of anyone who has not struck a special deal with AT&T.

It is typical for broadband providers to bill their customers, and only their customers, for access to the Internet. What Stephenson and Whitacre are talking about is a scheme to ransom off access to these customers to the highest bidders -- to add another toll, charging sites for first-in-line access to your connection.

For AT&T it's not just about delivering "your world" but about charging others for the privilege to enter "your world" in front of those that you'd prefer. The problem, of course, is that they're selling out your free choice in the process.

Stephenson scheme forces users to the sites that AT&T prefers. The phone and cable companies claim that this sort of discriminatory “double dipping” -- charging both consumers and content providers -- is necessary for them to provide the high speed services that Americans demand.

"While it’s one way to earn cash, it’s just too close to the Tony Soprano vision of networking: Use your position to make threats and extract payments," writes Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu. "This is similar to the outlawed, but still common, 'payola' schemes in the radio world. Yes, there’s money in such schemes, but they aren’t good for the industry or the country."

Whitacre and Stephenson's scheme is a fundamental shift in the neutral way the Internet has always worked. In essence, it takes away user choice -- the most basic tenet of the Internet – and hands it to AT&T.

It also tilts the Web’s even playing field to favor the larger corporations, while handicapping the Internet’s true innovators who can't afford to buy in to AT&T's protection racket.

Moyers' Three Factors in the Media's Iraq Failure

Originally published at Huffington Post

In a Q&A with media reform activists last night, Bill Moyers highlighted three factors that led to the media's near wholesale "buying" of the White Houses' case for war in Iraq.

The catastrophic march to war by outlets including the Washington Post, CNN, the New York Times, Fox News Channel and the Wall Street Journal should serve as an object lesson for hard scrutiny of a system that frequently undermines us all.

Moyers makes his case:

1. The Failure of Objectivity

The first factor was the loss of perspective among journalists, beginning in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.

"Too many journalists suspended their critical faculties because they were emotionally involved," Moyers said during a teleconference with attendees of nearly 150 house parties convened by my media reform group, Free Press, on Wednesday night.

For his latest PBS special "Buying the War," Moyers interviewed former CBS anchorman Dan Rather, who put up a sheepish defense of his teary-eyed comments on the September 17, 2001, David Letterman show, in which Rather infamously pledged:

"George Bush is the President, he makes the decisions, and, you know, as just one American, wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where."

During last night's broadcast, Rather admitted: "I don't think there is any excuse for, you know, my performance and the performance of the press in general in the roll up to the war. There were exceptions. There were some people, who, I think, did a better job than others. But overall and in the main there's no question that we didn't do a good job."

2. Blind Partisanship

A second factor that led to the spectacular media failure, according to Moyers, was the "fierce ideology and partisan loyalty of the right-wing press."

"The right wing ideological press... see themselves as amplifiers and megaphones of the White House and the Republican Party," Moyers said. "They had a vested interest in promoting the war, not only did they spread the message, not only did they monger for war, but any of us who rose above the trenches and tried to say, 'Hey, wait a minute, there's a different story here,' they came down on, they opposed, they slandered, they smeared."

The viciousness of the right-wing media attack on Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame, from the Malkin-Coulter fringe to the more mainstream op-ed pages of the New York Post, is just one example.

3. Big Media Elitism

Moyers third factor was that the "promiscuous, incestuous relationship between the media elites in Washington and the political elites led to a groupthink that resulted in this war."

"The Washington press corps is a clique, it's a claque," Moyers said, pointing to a few exceptions like the award-winning reporting of Knight-Ridder correspondents Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay, who are among the very few media figures profiled favorably in "Buying the War."

"The Poobahs of the press in Washington, the stars and the celebrities, they all have a stake in access, they all have a stake in keeping happy the people who they want on their shows and from whom they want the leaks and the access."

One prominent example of such elitism is Viacom chief executive Sumner Redstone, who, while calling himself a "liberal Democrat," threw his support behind President Bush in advance of the 2004 elections. His explanation: Access to power is good for business. Declaring his allegiance before some of America's and Asia's top executives in Hong Kong, Redstone said: "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom."

Solution: Transform Democracy by Reforming Media

Many of the pundits and boosters for the war are still flourishing in the media. During his broadcast, Moyers profiles Bill Kristol and Peter Beinart, who are now regular contributors of commentary to TIME magazine -- at a time when the publication's parent company, Time Warner Inc., is laying off dozens of reporters.

Worse, media giants that foist these absurd White House apologists before the camera -- often at the expense of more centrist or progressive or simply skeptical viewpoints, as ably demonstrated by media monitoring group FAIR -- is still currying favor with a narrowly clique of Washington's most powerful.

The worst symptom of Big Media's Beltway-vision is myopia to the issues that really matter to the rest of America. As Moyers once again demonstrates with last night's broadcast and discussion, it's time we demand a media that sheds light on issues of real public concern, even if it means chipping away at the edifices of the powerful.

As Congress and the FCC are deciding on a number of media issues – from Net Neutrality and the allocation of our public airwaves to how many local outlets Big Media should control -- the question before us is simple: Should the public remain passive before a media system that fails us on so many fronts?

Fortunately, people are waking up to what's at stake, and their voices are growing louder by the day. Those who assembled last night to discuss "Buying the War" with Bill Moyers are just a small sampling of a media reform movement that's fighting to take back the media in our name.

As millions more learn the facts from Moyers show and about the work of those in the movement, our message is spreading: We must reform the media to transform our democracy.

What Real Grassroots Look Like

SavetheInternet.com supporters are flexing their grassroots muscle once again, drumming up even broader support for Net Neutrality during 42 "in-district" meetings with members of Congress and their staff.

The meetings -- held over the past 60 days in offices from Shoreline, Wash., to Palm Harbor, Fla., from Providence, R.I., to Bakersfield, Calif. -- involved hundreds of activists who urged their elected representatives and senators to support Net Neutrality in the 110th Congress. As a result several members pledged to support Net Neutrality legislation when it came to a vote in Congress.

Here are reports from SavetheInternet.com activists in the field:

Rep. Phil Hare (D-Illinois)

Rep. Hare Gets Behind Markey's Bill

Margaret Thomas a teacher from Rock Island, Illinois joined eight others to meet with Rep. Hare on April 14. "Phil was interested in the information we gave him and in our individual experiences which led to our being involved in this issue. He said that he would get in touch with Congressman Markey and support the legislation that will be introduced to guarantee net neutrality."

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)

David Kaufer the founder and CEO of the Web-based start-up GreenforGood.com urged Rep. Jay Inslee (D -Wash.) "to be a strong and vocal leader." Inslee introduced Net Neutrality legislation in the House last year. He remains committed to supporting the principle, according to staffer Adam Bartz, who met with SavetheInternet.com supporters at Inslee's Shoreline office.

Andrew Pedersen, an independent recording artist, producer and distributor from Bellevue told a staffer from Rep. Inslee's office that Internet radio is essential to the marketing of independent artists across the globe. Pedersen depends on Web sales for 100 percent of his revenues. "Without Net Neutrality, these stations would not be able to afford the increased bandwidth operating costs, and I might not be able to afford my Web presence."

Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.)

SavetheInternet.com with Rep. Wilson: A Strong Supporter

"Rep. Heather Wilson concluded our meeting by saying she would definitely look into the possibility of co-sponsoring the Markey [Net Neutrality] bill," reported Gary Maricle an Albuquerque-based small business owner whose business consists of 20 Web sites that sell New Mexico chiles. "She also stated she wanted to look into whatever proposals there might be on the Senate side, too."

Along with five other Net Neutrality supporters from Wilson's district, Maricle handed the congresswoman a handwritten note from Gov. Bill Richardson's IT Commission Chairman urging her continued support of Net Neutrality. "I believe she was duly impressed," Maricle wrote.

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Kentucky)

Rep. Yarmuth: Voting in the public interest

Mark McKinley a low power radio activist in Louisville met on April 5 with Rep. Yarmuth. McKinley reports that his group gave Yarmuth a pro-business perspective on Net Neutrality. "Rep. Yarmuth seemed genuine in wanting to follow-up to learn more," he writes. "We had the opportunity to get John's read on this, and, after hearing from us, I feel he's better prepared to cast his vote in the public's interest. It matters."

Rep. Henry Johnson's (D-Ga.)

Candace Apple a businesswoman from Atlanta met with Johnson's Special Assistant Carole Mumford on March 7. "We discussed free speech issues and the danger of losing internet neutrality," she reports. "As a small business owner I discussed my concerned about the impact on the vitality of small business in America if the internet were no longer a level playing field." Mumford told Apple and other activists that she had watched the SavetheInternet.com video and will alert Rep. Johnson to support the issue.

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)

Musician Daniel Krimm from Menlo Park joined a group of six others in a meeting at the office of Net Neutrality supporter Rep. Anna Eshoo.

"I mentioned that Eshoo herself and other elected officials have a strong interest in protecting their own access to their constituents as the Internet continues to increase the availability of tools to reach constituents outside," he reported after the meeting. "We made a lot of points about common carriage, the increasing status of the Internet as an essential public utility (as various different media increasingly converge on this platform), and the need to protect market competition in the information market generally."

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)

Sen. Cantwell's office a 'cheerleader' for Neutrality

William Purdy of Bainbridge Island met with Cantwell's outreach director Shakti Hawkins on March 7. "Because of Cantwell's background in high tech, she has a particular interest in Net Neutrality, he writes about the meeting. "She will be a cheerleader." Cantwell is among the strong supporters of Senator Byron Dorgan's bill (S.215). "The politicians who will oppose this should be made to understand that Net Neutrality is pro-business, pro-entrepreneur, pro-free market," Purdy reports. "Those are things they understand and respond to."

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana)

Ross Rannells an internet software developer and instructor from Mishawaka, Indiana met on March 25 with Rep. Donnelly. "He promised to vote in support of Net Neutrality, Rannells writes. "Other supporters [at the meeting] put a human face on the issue and were able to convince him that the issue had a significant effect on the lives of his constituents." Joseph Jackmovich who was also at the Donnelly meeting reports that the representative "went so far as to promise to not let Net Neutrality die."

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.)

Rep. Courtney Pledges Support for Net Neutrality

Freshman Congressman Joe Courtney (D-Conn.) pledged his support and promised to work with Markey's office on legislation, according to John Smith, a member of the Suffield Board of Selectmen.

"I do believe that he now understands the issue, and I believe that because of our meeting he is better informed," reported insurance agent Jeff Melhorn who joined up with Smith and four others to meet with Rep. Courtney. "I recommend that if you like your Internet the way it is, please take an hour out of the day and see your congressman. It is worth it."

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.)

Deborah Pearson from Cumming, Ga., met with Rep. Nathan Deal on Feb. 20. Mr. Deal "seemed very interested and concerned that his constituency would be adversely affected by any changes in the Internet," she reported. "I believe Mr. Deal appreciated that I took the time to see him."

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.)

David Wass of Santa Barbara, California led a group of activists in a meeting on April 5 with Rep. Capps. "Lois said she would support Rep. Ed Markey's bill due to come out later this year," he writes. "All of those present were able to converse quite eloquently with the Congresswoman on the issue."

Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.)

"Overall very encouraging," reported Web developer Giles Hendrix about his meeting with the chief of staff from Rep. Yvette Clarke's Brooklyn office. "We each gave our specific cases, and by the end of the meeting he was explaining the issue to us."

"He listened, asked good questions, and gave everyone time to air out on the issue," wrote Brian Donohue of the Daily rEvolution Weblog. "He specifically asked that he be notified when the Markey legislation is ready to hit the floor."

Rep. David Davis (R-Tenn.)

"He was not previously aware of the Net Neutrality issue," said Carolyn Rice Dean, a small business owner from Morristown, Tenn., after her meeting with Rep. David Davis (R-Tenn.).

Rep. Davis Tells Carolyn He's Concerned about Threat to Small Businesses

"He seemed genuinely interested and asked me to keep his office informed as to what bills and when as that info becomes available," she added. "That is when he told me he was a small business owner, too, and he completely understood."

Rep. Davis later mentioned the meeting during a hearing of the House Committee on Small Business. Davis said that small companies in his district had expressed fears they might go under if stuck with either stiff access fees or slower Internet access. "Help me understand [Net Neutrality]," said the congressman, "so I can explain it to my constituents."

Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kansas)

Kevin Siek of Topeka Kansas met on April 4 with staff from of Rep. Boyda's office. "From the conversation I would say that Boyda is at least leaning our way on Net Neutrality… I'm sure if enough of her constituents urge her to support Net Neutrality she will eventually get religion."

"Net Neutrality allows me to help grassroots organizations to organize for a variety of issues from local elections to global warming," wrote Christopher Renner of Manhattan, Kansas who also attended the meeting. "Without equal access to the Internet such fundamental democratic processes would not longer help candidates like Rep. Boyda get elected."

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

John Thrasher, a former entertainment retail executive from Bakersfield, told a staffer from Rep. Kevin McCarthy's office that the Net Neutrality issue "cuts across party lines and should be viewed in the interests of trying to see that competition fairness is essential on the Internet."

"Here's hoping for continued progress," he added.

Rep. Chris Carney's (D-Pa.)

On April 5, Donald Noll of Jermyn Pennsylvania joined other Net Neutrality supporters in a lively discussion with Rep. Carney's top aide before speaking with Carney himself. "The aide was very familiar with the issues and I believe we have allies here but we reminded him that we would be watching this issue closely and intended to follow up," Noll reports.

Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-Missouri)

SavetheInternet.com at Sen McCaskill's office

JoAnn Witt of Kansas City, Missouri met with Sen. McCaskill's deputy regional director, Kimiko Gilmore on April 10. "We, all, had special examples of how we would be affected by a loss of Neutrality," she writes. I made sure that she saw that companies would cause us all kinds of problems without a law prohibiting them from doing so."

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)

An aide to Rep. Welch told Net Neutrality supporters that he was upset that there was so much bickering among members of Congress over this issue. "I said when huge amounts of money are on the table that table manners tend to go the way of all flesh," said John Bloch, president of Onion River Community Access Media. Welch has come out in support of Net Neutrality.

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.)

Branch Heller of Wilmington led a group of Net Neutrality supporters to meet with Brian J. Bushweller, the state director for Senator Carper. "We informed Brian that we wanted Senator Carper to sign on as a co-sponsor of the Dorgan-Snowe bill (S.215)," Heller reports.

"Mainly we presented two aspects: small business' lack of ability to stay competitive, and the benefit to the public of having the freedom of unfettered access to information," reports Marilyn Green, who attended the meeting with Heller. "That's it in a nutshell."

Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.)

John Hoke a publisher from Oklahoma City met with Rep. Fallin's aide Denise Northrup. "We are a small family business and we would run the risk of being shut out, or at best, paying for Web recognition," Hoke reports. "[Northrup] was very receptive and said she would take the issue to Rep. Fallin. I think we had a positive impact with each of us offering a different but effective perspective."

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

Joshua Fidel a systems administrator from Medina, Ohio led a group in an April 12 meeting with Senator Sherrod Browns (D-Ohio) deputy director, Beth Thames. "As a System Administration Manager, it's incredibly important to me that no traffic shaping is allowed to take place," Fidel reports. Fidel told the staffer that a world without Net Neutrality would "hurt Internet businesses of all sizes … and create a significant barrier to entry."

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.)

"We had a very productive meeting. Everyone worked well together and several of us will continue to work together in the future," wrote technology instructor Andrea Miller of her meeting with representatives of Sen. Jim Webb's Richmond office.

Miller continues:

"I explained how both large and small companies would be affected. Brian and Scott both spoke about what would change in large organizations and about the fact that the telcos are already making millions of dollars for their services. Ken explained how smaller businesses would be impacted (and how some would be eliminated). Catherine spoke to how former foster care children and current foster parents would lose group support and informational assets. Tom Wolfe explained that his law firm would certainly be able to pay whatever additional costs might be exacted, but that many of his clients would not fare so well."

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Rep. Murphy: Fighting corporate abuse

Michael Glenn of West Simsbury, Connecticut met on March 24 with Rep. Murphy. Murphy told Glenn and other SavetheInternet.com activists that one of the main reasons he ran for Congress was to keep in check corporate abuses. "He told us he had a meeting scheduled with telecom lobbyists and he would let us know how those encounters go." Stay tuned.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.)

Mark Page, a retired engineer from Little Compton, R.I., spent about two hours in Senator Whitehhouse's Providence office talking about Net Neutrality with the senator's state director, George Carvalho. "He came out of the meeting with a good basic understanding of what Net Neutrality is and how it affects every aspect of Internet freedom for the person on the street and as business owners."

Page continues:

"Mr. Carvalho learned what we wanted him to learn. There was no hesitation on the issues, everyone made their presentations with conviction. There was no doubt that the people at that meeting really cared about this issue and that it bothered some and really pissed off others. … I told Mr. Carvalho, don't let the senator not know about this issue. When this bill comes up, make sure he goes up on the Hill and votes against letting the big telecom’s take over the Internet."

Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.)

"We had a reasonable assurance from the aide that Congressman Kagen would vote on the right side of the issue," reports Lon C Ponschock of Appleton, Wisconsin, who joined other activists at an April 18 meeting with Kagen's office. "I'm glad I went and I thank you and Free Press and SavetheInternet.com for doing this important work," writes Lon.

Rep. Pallone Hears from His Constituents

Other Recent Meetings:

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-Pa.) on February 23

Rep. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.) on February 27

Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) on February 22

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) on February 23

Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) on February 23

Rep. Henry Johnson (D-Ga.) on March 7

Rep. Jane Harman (D- Calif.) on 30-March

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) on April 3

Rep. Gonzales With Neutrality Supporters

Rep. Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas) on April 3

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Illinois) on April 4

Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Texas) on April 5

Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Arizona) on April 11

Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Colorado) on April 12

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) on April 12

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) on April 13

Rep. Betty Sutton (D-Ohio) on April 13

Rep. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) on April 16

Without a Plan, U.S. Drops Further in Global Broadband

America needs a national broadband policy, not more excuses from the broadband companies.

This point was driven home once again with the release of new broadband data that places the United States now 15th out of the 30 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) nations in per capita broadband use.

The "Hands Off" Approach: America Slips Further Behind

The U.S. had slipped from our 12th place ranking just six months ago when we dropped from the fourth place ranking we held in 2001. And our free fall will continue as long as we allow phone and cable companies to dictate broadband policy in Washington and monopolize access across the country.

A Country Without a Plan

The countries at the top of the OECD's list have true national broadband policies. Thomas Bleha recently explained in Foreign Affairs that America's lag "is arguably the result of the Bush administration's failure to make a priority of developing these networks. In fact, the United States is the only industrialized state without an explicit national policy for promoting broadband."

Instead, U.S. policymakers and the FCC have left development of domestic broadband to the whims of predatory ISPs, which dole out untold millions in campaign contributions and fees to Washington lawyers, lobbyists and P.R. consultants to fight against efforts to serve the public interest while pushing for more corporate benefits and giveaways.

The Telco Swindle

It's "sheer hypocrisy" for companies like AT&T and Verizon to scream for deregulation when they themselves are largely to blame for our broadband decline. As Internet guru Cory Doctorow wrote, these phone and cable giants base their business on "government-granted extraordinary privileges."

But these privileges extend little further than their bank accounts.

Meanwhile, America is losing ground to Japan, France, Canada, the Netherlands and other developed nations. We now have slower speeds at higher prices than any other developed country in the world. Yet the handful of ISPs that control access in this country continue to reap massive and growing profits -- more than a $115 billion dollars in 2006 alone.

Most U.S. homes can access only "basic" broadband, which is among the slowest, most expensive, and least reliable in the developed world. And it's not getting any better. According to the OECD report, the United States ranks 20th out of 30 nations in the growth rate of broadband penetration over the past year.

The 'Hands Off' Approach = Billions in Losses

America's intensely "hands-off" system of recent years has resulted in a marketplace dominated by the few. Earlier this year, Richard Hoffman of InformationWeek reported that American broadband "doesn't represent the true state of the United States as a technology leader. Laissez-faire isn't a viable stance if the goal is to compete most effectively against other industrialized nations."

"Those nations able to craft genuinely forward-looking telecommunications policies that promote universal access as well as enhancing competition, and which can balance short-term market forces against long-term national priorities, will reap the current and future benefits of increased economic productivity," Hoffman concludes.

The consequences of a policy vacuum will resonate for generations, said S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press and principal author of "Broadband Reality Check," which calls on U.S. leaders to get behind a vision that will regain our position as the world leader in technology.

"The growth trends indicate that the United States is likely to continue to fall behind the rest of the world in broadband penetration, which will have lasting and significant effects on U.S. economic performance."

Turner found that the benefits of higher broadband penetration accumulate exponentially. "Thus even a minor increase in our ranking has a tremendous positive impact on American consumers," he said. "If broadband penetration were 50 percent of all U.S. homes [it's now at approximately 40 percent], economists estimate that consumers would realize a $38 billion annual surplus. If household broadband penetration were at 95 percent, the consumer surplus would be $350 billion."

Getting Back on Track

At a Senate Commerce Committee hearing tomorrow on broadband competitiveness, SavetheInternet.com members Free Press, Consumers Union and the Consumer Federation of America will urge Congress to pursue a comprehensive national broadband policy that enhances competition, fosters neutrality, protects free speech, expands opportunities to bring new providers into the marketplace, and uses economic incentives to stimulate investment in underserved areas.

The data coming out of the OECD makes this even more urgent. It's time we regained control of our broadband destiny by creating a national plan that puts our future back on the right track.

-- For more, read the important analysis at SavetheInternet.com.

Imus Gone But Big Media Remain

The controversy over Don Imus' racist remarks goes far beyond one bigoted commentator. But getting rid of Imus won't fix the media problem.

After Imus: What You Can Do

While the recent remarks by Don Imus are deeply objectionable, StopBigMedia.com does not have a formal position on whether he should have been fired or retained. Our mission is to deal with government policies that shape the media system.

About the Imus issue, media scholar and Free Press co-founder Robert McChesney recently wrote:

Imus still is a free person. He can start a blog or, in all likelihood, find another media company willing to employ him. He has as many free speech rights as you or me. If someone suggests the government should remove his free speech rights, I will be the first to defend him.

But that does not mean Imus has a First Amendment right to a national radio or TV program, any more than you and I have a right to demand we get a national program on a TV network or radio network. When it comes to freedom of the press, the right and responsibility for what is produced, published and broadcast rests with the institution. MSNBC and CBS hold that First Amendment privilege, for the most part. The government cannot and should not force MSNBC or CBS to hire or fire a specific person. And if you feel strongly that MSNBC and CBS should retain Imus, or hire someone else to provide his style of humor, you should tell them.

It's clear to McChesney and others that this is not a fight over the First Amendment. We are rather concerned with the government policies that establish the media system. We believe that this incident points to a systemic problem in our media: Most of our TV and radio stations are owned by giant corporate conglomerates. They don't represent the views of most Americans -- and they make huge profits off the public airwaves.

What Imus said is just the tip of the iceberg. Scores of other TV and radio hosts regularly make racist and sexist comments. The best way to stop this race to the bottom is to change who's sitting at the top -- and making the decisions about who's behind the mic.

Right now, less than 10% of radio and television stations are owned by people of color or women. And, according to one industry study, only 2.5% of radio stations have a person of color in the role of general manager, and only 4.4% have a racial or ethnic minority in the role of news director. The percentage of women in these jobs isn't much higher. No wonder shock jocks like Imus have been able to keep their jobs for so long.

But instead of addressing this national disgrace, the Federal Communications Commission is actually trying to let the largest companies buy up even more stations!

According to McChesney:

Women of color, like those Rutgers basketball players, own almost nothing. The FCC has refused to follow its congressional mandate to advance minority media ownership; indeed, we have been going in the wrong direction for a good decade. This is not the only reason we end up with someone like Imus broadcast coast to coast, but it is a factor. It is one we can and must change.

One of the best ways to get new voices on television and radio is by addressing the lack of diversity in media ownership. Promoting diverse media ownership and protecting freedom of speech are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. In fact, we can and must aggressively fight for both simultaneously.

If you agree, work with the StopBigMedia.com Coalition to demand media ownership that better reflects the diversity that makes our nation great.

>> Tell the FCC: We Need More Diversity in the Media

>> Tell Your Friends to Join in This Action

Groups Co-Opted To Spread Telco Propaganda

And you thought telco Astroturfing had gotten bad enough.

Bruce Kushnick of Teletruth exposes the dirty ways that AT&T and Verizon manipulate public opinion by "co-opting" not-for-profit groups and aligning their leaders against Net Neutrality -- even when it’s not in the best interests of their constituents.

Over the last few weeks groups representing minorities, disabled and low-income constituents have been hyping AT&T and Verizon efforts to stop any Net Neutrality legislation, Kushnick writes.

These groups appear to be saying that blacks, Hispanics, seniors, poor, deaf or disabled persons universally oppose the principle that maintains the Internet’s level playing field -- and that they want to help “these ‘poor’ misunderstood companies” deliver better services.

But there’s more to it than that.

Follow the Money

"What do these groups have in common?" asks Kushnick. "They all receive funding from AT&T and/or Verizon, and then lobby for them."

This is nothing new. Over the past decade, the phone companies have left a trail of broken promises to deliver faster broadband to disadvantaged populations in exchange for government giveaways and favorable P.R. from their community leaders.

Taken alone, this is outrageous. But it's only one shady tactic in the phone companies' multi-million dollar campaign to destroy the principle that prevents them from manipulating (they like to say "shaping") content on the Internet and taking away users' ability to choose for themselves.

Coin-Operated Analysis

According to Ed Mierzwinski of SavetheInternet.com member US Pirg, creating such propaganda has long been the business model of one of the Bells' favorite PR firms -- Issue Dynamics.

Blogging about Issue Dynamics in 2005, Mierzwinski reported that the company helped create a "think tank" known as the New Millennium Research Council (NMRC) with the sole intention of dressing up Bell-friendly opinions and hoisting them before the public as objective economic analysis.

NMRC is just one in a long line of coin-operated think tanks -- a list that includes the Phoenix Center, Heartland Institute, Progress and Freedom Foundation and the Cato Institute among others -- that routinely trade industry-friendly analysis for corporate dollars.

Selling Out The Public

And this brand of sock puppetry is just one voice in the Telco choir -- a congregation including "consumery" sounding groups and pro-competition sounding payola pundits, among other PR firms and lobbyists. They have all been convened to create "a very loud 'sound wall' of consumer support that actually doesn't exist," according to Karl of Broadband Reports.

It's a collection of shills and sellouts, which in 2006 cost the phone companies more than $175 million to assemble. It's money spent at the expense of those who most need access to a fast and neutral Internet.

About these groups Kushnick concludes: "while they themselves benefit from the phone companies’ funding, [they] certainly harm their own constituents."

Net Neutrality should be debated openly, based upon the merits of the issue. But with so many players secreting away telco money to spread propaganda, it’s hard to separate those on the take from those who really want a better Internet for us all.