Verizon Scrambles Lawyers to Keep Wireless Market Closed

Verizon Wireless, America's second largest mobile phone service, is suing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over its recent decision to unlock cell-phones from restrictive carrier agreements.

The FCC decision, limited to cellphone use on the 700 megahertz band "C block," had been heralded as a landmark move by the FCC -- one that would benefit consumers by unshackling mobile phones and bringing competition and innovation into the wireless devices marketplace.

Verizon Locked Down (photo courtesy of Wired)

In reality, it was a small step on the long road to breaking up the anti-competitive, anti-consumer oligopoly that controls nearly every level of the wireless marketplace: devices, services, networks and applications.

Send Lawyers, FUD and Money

Yet even such a minor gesture towards consumers was enough to unleash Verizon's lawyers.

In a Monday court filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, Verizon claimed that the FCC decision was "arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law." It also accuses the Commission of exceeding its authority under the 1934 Communications Act, the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure's Act, without offering further detail.

Reading between the lines we see a brazen effort by Verizon to use the courts to deprive consumers of choice in America's wireless marketplace.

Locking in a Frozen Business Model

America lags far behind other technologically developed countries. A lack of competition has left wireless companies complacent and stifled innovation. At the moment a consumer can't use his or her cellphone with other wireless carriers, and many of the devices themselves are "crippled" by carriers so they can't perform to their full potential

"Many consumers feel trapped having bought an expensive device or having been locked into a long-term contract with significant penalties for switching," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said during a July House Subcommittee hearing on wireless freedom.

This system has left the U.S. generations behind the rest of the developed world, a failure that prompted New York Times blogger David Pogue to call American carriers "calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts."

"For some reason I have never been able to understand, I have to ask permission of Verizon Wireless to attach a computer or the computers that they now call phones to their wireless networks," Jason Devitt, co-Founder and CEO of Skydeck testified during the Markey hearing. "I have to ask their permission to run applications and services on those phones."

Half Gestures in Small Slices

The FCC's July 31 order was meant to remedy this. In a four-to-one vote the agency moved to follow the "Carterfone" provisions that were imposed on the AT&T monopoly in a groundbreaking 1968 telecommunications decision.

Life without Carterfone

Prior to Carterfone, AT&T controlled every phone on its network, as wireless providers do today. The 1968 ruling pried opened the devices marketplace so that numerous new phone products -- including answering machines, fax machines, cordless phones, and early computer modems -- could be introduced by other manufacturers.

Applying Carterfone rules to the wireless marketplace could open the market for a similar revolution in gadgets while freeing up users to bring their handheld devices with them from one carrier to another. But the FCC order only applied to a slice of the 700 MHz band.

The FCC's move was praised in the trade press, even though it was a "half gesture" towards consumer and public interest advocates who have been calling for rules to foster innovation and create real open access standards across the entire spectrum.

But as with any change to the system, no matter how small, it posed a creeping threat to those that now dominate the marketplace.

And that's why Verizon sent in their lawyers.

Uncovering DOJ's Hit Against an Open Internet

Net neutrality supporters today submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice to shed light on their recent hit job against net neutrality.

The request, submitted by Free Press, the media reform group that coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, seeks to uncover whether industry lobbyists or White House politics had a hand in the Justice Department's unusual, and unusually late, action.

Gonzales: Mum for Now

On Sept. 6, the FCC received an ex parte filing nearly two months after the FCC's formal comment period on net neutrality had closed, raising significant questions about timing and intent. The filing encouraged the FCC to allow phone and cable companies to filter Web traffic and wall off parts of the Web for those that pay an extra toll.

Prying Open Justice

"We want to know what motivated the Department of Justice to oppose net neutrality this late in the process," said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press and author of the request.

"The filing lacks any evidence of serious investigation into this critical issue and fits into a pattern of politically motivated decisions coming out of the Justice Department. We want to know if the Bush administration's lawyers reached out to any of the thousands of groups, businesses or individuals who support net neutrality -- or if they only talked to industry lobbyists at AT&T and Verizon."

The DOJ ruling raises legitimate concern that powerful corporate and White House gatekeepers are working together to dismantle Internet freedoms and impose their will upon the Web.

Between the White House and AT&T

The Justice Department filing parroted phone and cable industry arguments against net neutrality. It's also part of an emerging pattern of collusion between the White House and those companies that control access to high-speed Internet service for more than 96 percent of residential users in America.

In late 2006, the DOJ's antitrust division rubber-stamped AT&T's takeover of BellSouth -- the largest telecommunications merger in history -- without seeking any consumer protections. The FCC ultimately required AT&T to respect net neutrality for two years as a condition of approving the deal.

Last month the U.S. Director of intelligence revealed that the government and AT&T had conspired in far-reaching efforts to spy on Americans without legal warrant -- efforts for which the Bush administration is now seeking to give immunity from prosecution to AT&T and other phone companies.

Lastly, the filing came during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' final days at the helm of Justice -- raising concerns that the departing attorney general was seeking to deliver last-minute favors for White House allies.

Short Changing the Public on Universal Access

The Bush administration has fallen well short of its goal of universal access to the Internet by 2007, instead opting for policies that support the duopoly of cable and telephone companies and stifle free market competition.

Actions taken against privacy and the open Internet by AT&T, Verizon and the Bush administration are precisely why we need to make net neutrality the law. The lack of broadband competition has given giant companies like AT&T enormous power to advance their own interests -- at a huge public expense.

By replacing duopoly control with healthy competition on open and free networks we can achieve universal and affordable high-speed access for everyone. Net neutrality would protect Americans from the types of Internet gatekeeping favored by the White House and their phone and cable allies.

Today's FOIA request could dig up more evidence of efforts in Washington to dismantle basic Web freedoms and distort the Internet for financial and political gain. It's now up to the Justice Department to respond.

Guess Who's Afraid of an Open Internet?

Open Internet advocates just received a parting gift from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In a Thursday filing to the Federal Communications Commission, Gonzales' Department of Justice urged the agency to oppose Net Neutrality -- the principle that all Internet sites should be treated equally.

Last-minute favors for friends in Texas

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 ruling once again proves the point: Powerful corporate and government gatekeepers are working together to dismantle Internet freedoms and impose their will upon the Web.

While Gonzales' feckless reign at Justice is near an end, his legacy at the department is becoming clear: The DOJ has established itself as a friend to the powerful and enemy to the basic freedoms that Americans once took for granted.

As Gonzales slinks back to Texas, he is merely pulling last-minute favors for friends in high places. This week's filing reeks of the same sort of cronyism that has left a slime trail wherever the attorney general has gone.

Going AWOL on Internet Freedom

In October 2006, the DOJ went AWOL in its duty to protect consumers and competition when it rubber-stamped AT&T’s bid to gobble up BellSouth. It was left to the FCC to step in and restore Net Neutrality safeguards to the massive merger.

When AT&T was accused of illegally tapping its customers' lines, it was DOJ lawyers that moved in under the cover of night with an attempt to dismiss the suit.

It was late last month that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell admitted the extent to which the government and AT&T had conspired in far-reaching efforts to spy on Americans without legal warrant. The Bush administration is now pushing for immunity from prosecution for telecom firms that eavesdrop on customers.

AT&T has long sought to use "deep packet inspection" tools to sift Internet user content. The company has already "demoed" this technology to the RIAA and MPA as part of a plan to scour the Web for file sharing that doesn’t conform to the industry’s draconian interpretation of copyright.

Without Net Neutrality protections, it was only a matter of time before phone companies and government used this same technology to spy on the everyday activities of Net users.

Parroting Ma Bell

Thursday’s filing by a lame duck Attorney General is instructive in this context. According to public interest lawyer Harold Feld of Media Access Project, the DOJ document reads like the "Cliffsnotes version" of AT&T’s own anti-Net Neutrality filing.

"The filing parrots the industry arguments that adopting a rule that would prevent telephone and cable companies from monitoring and filtering internet traffic would harm investment and innovation," Feld writes, "despite mounting evidence from Europe and Asia that the opposite is true."

Indeed, the DOJ filing uses hollow industry rhetoric about market forces to provide cover for more nefarious aims. According to the filing:

Other proposals would require interconnection, open access and structural separation of companies offering both Internet access services or transmission and content or applications deliverable over the Internet.

The Department submits, however, that free market competition, unfettered by unnecessary government regulatory restraints is the best way to foster innovation and development of the Internet.

This is utter nonsense. The DOJ knows, as does anyone paying attention to American broadband, that there is no "free market competition" or consumer choice when high speed Internet services are controlled by so few.

Open Internet = Free Market

Free market competition is exactly what we need. To get it, we must move beyond the broadband duopoly that has left America far behind the rest of the world in services and connectivity.

Moreover, we need to safeguard Internet traffic from the types of surveillance and "content shaping" now being deployed by these same companies.

Net Neutrality should be the cornerstone of any national broadband plan. It frees the types of economic innovation and competition that have been a hallmark of the Internet’s development.

Net Neutrality guarantees that each of us gets an equal voice and equal choice without meddling from the likes of Gonzales and his friends at Ma Bell.

Media News Group's Cluster F@!k

The nation's fourth-largest newspaper company is using a regional consolidation strategy to break the backs of local unions and lay off journalists and other staff.

Media News Group (MNG) -- the national chain that owns 57 daily newspapers, regionally "clustered" throughout California, the Mountain West and the Northeast -- solidified its control over Bay Area news by buying up the Contra Costa Times and the San Jose Mercury News in the wake of Knight-Ridder's recent fire sale.

Singleton: King of Cluster

With the move, MNG now owns every daily newspaper in the region except the San Francisco Chronicle and Examiner.

It's trying to use this leverage to break the back of unions and jettison editorial staff.

Cluster, Consolidate and Cut

Earlier this summer, MNG management circulated a hit list of 46 Mercury News journalists to be laid off or not replaced. Typographers also lost 22 positions in San Jose when MNG outsourced production work to India and to nonunion contractors.

Other job cuts are reportedly on the horizon. But first MNG had to remove an obstacle.

In a letter to Newspaper Guild leaders earlier this month, Marshall Anstandig, the company's attorney, stated that MNG's corporate restructuring diminished the Guild's representation to "significantly less than 50% of the newly consolidated editorial group." In his view, this allows the company to dismiss the Guild as a bargaining representative of its employees.

"It follows [MNG CEO] Dean Singleton's business pattern of cut, consolidate and cluster," Guild organizer Amanda Ballantyne told Media Minutes this week. "But it was done in a way we believe to specifically bust the union, to get the union out of the whole scheme of things."

Bad Local News: The Offspring of Inbreeding

The Newspaper Guild has filed several unfair labor practice charges at the National Labor Relations board --- alleging that MNG violated federal law when it refused to hire union workers and transferred jobs to non-union employees.

Spokespeople for newspaper giants like to sugar-coat these sorts of cost-cutting efforts with terms like "clustering" and "synergy." In reality they translate to mean layoffs and cheapened news. Creating an inbred relationship between regional newsrooms degrades coverage, demoralizes staff and discourages readers.

We a recently received a letter from San Jose Mercury News reader who used to enjoy the paper with her morning cup of coffee.

"Since it has been taken over there is not much 'news' to read," she writes. "[And] this was a paper that has won awards for journalistic investigation, and was highly respected. ... My subscription is getting tenuous because my reason for reading the morning paper is being eroded daily."

From Anger to Action

Canceling subscriptions is one form of reader activism. But there are perhaps more productive ways to improve local media.

"We desperately need rules to prevent one-size-fits-all news from becoming the standard in our communities," FCC Commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps wrote in a recent op-ed.

We need your input," they wrote. "We believe we have the best chance in our generation to settle this issue of who will control our media and for what purposes."

The FCC will soon decide whether to allow a small number of media giants to buy up more local media outlets across the land.

While this specific ruling may not stop MNG's assault on quality journalism in the Bay Area, it has helped amplify calls for more accountable news at the local level.

This noise can be turned into action by urging the FCC to protect localism and supporting the Guild's ongoing efforts to safeguard local journalism across the country.

-- For more, listen to this week's "Media Minutes"

The One Campaign Issue Ignored By Big Media? Themselves.

That more presidential candidates are speaking out against media consolidation should signal the importance of this issue in 2008 election cycle. But it's a signal that's not getting a clear reception in the newsrooms of the nation's largest media companies.

The issue bubbled forth during a raucous presidential forum at Saturday's Yearly Kos Convention in Chicago, blogger Jason Rosenbaum rose before seven Democratic candidates to ask:

Dodd and Clinton Speak Out

"With only a handful of companies controlling the majority of news and information Americans consume, media consolidation and a lack of diverse viewpoints in the news is threatening American democracy. How do you plan to support equal access to broadcast media?"

Senators Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton took the bait. Dodd said that "consolidation ought to be one of the great concerns of every person in this country … I'll do everything I can to see that that is broken up, as president of the United States."

Clinton followed: "I think that we have got to do everything we can to open up our media environment ... We have to have more competition, more voices and [keep] the Internet open so that we don't put it in the domain of any one or a couple of the media or utility owners."

Sending a Signal to Big Media: Pay Attention

Over the past four years, millions of people have spoken out to Congress and the FCC against letting a few companies control so much of the national news agenda. These concerns became more acute over the summer as Rupert Murdoch circled Dow Jones and the Wall Street Journal.

As so much media continues to fall into the hands of people with an overt political agenda, it's no wonder candidates are seeking to push the problem into the limelight. But is the message really getting through?

We surveyed the 40 mainstream media outlets that covered the Saturday forum -- including MSNBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times, USA Today, the Washington Post, Associated Press and local and regional conglomerate-owned newspapers -- and not one mentioned the media consolidation question or the candidates' reply.

"I thought it was the right question for the Yearly Kos because it's not going to get asked at any mainstream network debate," Rosenbaum said about his decision to question candidates during the blogger convention. "This event was the right format."

Blitzer Tries to Change the Channel

John Edwards: Malkin and Blitzer Dodge the Real Issue

It seemed to resonate -- at least with the candidates. On Tuesday, Sen. John Edwards brought the issue before the cameras again. During an appearance on CNN opposite a jumpy Wolf Blitzer, Edwards said:

"I don't want to see Rupert Murdoch -- or anybody else for that matter -- owning every newspaper in America. What we have seen with consolidation of the media is not healthy for this country. We need divergent opinion expressed in this country and if the media is consolidated that runs completely contrary to that."

Blitzer dodged the issue by shifting the discussion from policy to questions about proceeds from a book Edwards wrote for HarperCollins, a News Corp subsidiary. Elsewhere, on Fox News, host Michelle Malkin disparaged Edwards' concerns about her parent company by calling the candidate a "hypocrite" for accepting Murdoch money to publish the book. Neither Spitzer or Malkin cared to respond to Edwards specific concerns or to mention that the North Carolina Senator contributed all proceeds from the deal to charity.

"If you stand up to them and say consolidating the media is a bad thing, it's an unhealthy thing, what they do is attack you," Edwards replied. "They can continue to attack. They will not silence me. We are right about this. The media should not be consolidated and Rupert Murdoch should not own every newspaper in the United States of America"

Blitzer shifted gears again trying to close rank with CNN's cable news rival and defend News Corp's line of attack -- ignoring the larger point about "unhealthy" consolidation at the hands of companies like CNN's own parent Time Warner.

Crossing Party Lines

Rumblings about the threat of powerful media have been heard all along the campaign trail -- from both Democratic and Republican contenders.

Over the past year, nearly every Democratic presidential candidate, including Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Biden and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, have spoken out against efforts by phone and cable companies to stifle an open Internet and gut "Net Neutrality" -- the fundamental principle that prevents network providers from discriminating against online content and services.

They have been joined by Republican candidate Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, who told Republican bloggers in May that Net Neutrality must be preserved. Candidates including Sen. John McCain and Rep. Ron Paul have also expressed support for a more democratic media, backing initiatives to protect Low Power FM and Internet radio.

But mainstream media has remained mute, perhaps loath to focus on issues that butt against the narrow interests of their owners.

MediaVote 2008

In 2008 though we have a more media-savvy citizens -- people like Rosenbaum -- who find new ways to jam mainstream media and push this issue before the lens. More candidates should follow our lead and take a loud public stand that media conglomerates can't ignore.

Big Media may try to keep this issue in the shadows. With more public activism, before the cameras and the candidates, we can be spark a broader public conversation in 2008 -- one that exposes the many ways the special interests of Big Media owners infiltrates the news that they serve up to millions.

AT&T Plays Gatekeeper. Censors Pearl Jam.

Over the weekend AT&T gave us a glimpse of their plans for the Web when they censored a Pearl Jam performance that didn't meet their standard of "Internet freedom."

Pearl Jam: Seen But Not Heard

During the live Lollapalooza Webcast of a concert by the Seattle-based super-group, the telco giant muted lead singer Eddie Vedder just as he launched into a lyric against President George Bush. The lines -- "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush find yourself another home" were somehow lost in the mix.

"What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band," Pearl Jam band members stated after the incident in a release that urged people to take action.

Indeed. AT&T routinely rails against Net Neutrality as a "solution without a problem." They say Net Neutrality regulations aren't necessary because they wouldn't dare interfere with online content. At the same time they tout plans to become gatekeepers to the Web with public relations bromides about "shaping" Web traffic to better serve the needs of an evolving Internet.

Such spin needs to be held up to the light of experience. AT&T's history of breaking trust with their customers includes handing over private phone records to the government, promising to deliver services to underserved communities and then skipping town, pledging never to interfere with the free flow of information online while hatching plans with the likes of Cisco, Viacom, RIAA and MPA to build and deploy technology that will spy on user traffic.

The moral of this story is never trust AT&T at their word. The company acts in bad faith toward the public interest and will do whatever it can get away with to pad its bottom line -- including sacrificing the freedoms its users have to choose where they go, what they watch and whom they listen to online.

The Future of Music Coalition have done great work to mobilize hundreds of rock bands against such censorship but it's a threat that concerns everyone.

AT&T's vision of a better Internet -- "Your World Delivered" -- is not one that is shared by the more than 1.5 million people who have spoken out in favor of a neutral, affordable and accessible Internet for everyone. For us, the Internet isn't about one company delivering our world. It's about simply offering a high-speed connection at competitive and reasonable rates -- and then getting out of our way.

The FCC Closes a Window to an Open Internet

Too often in the give and take of media policymaking it's government officials that are giving, corporate giants that are taking, and the public that's left with little in the exchange.

This was the case yesterday as the Federal Communications Commission decided to sell off licenses to an invaluable chunk of public airwaves with few conditions to ensure that Americans gain from the deal.

FCC Commissioners

The spectrum in question -- the 700 MHz band – will be returned to Americans after TV broadcasters shift from an analog (and spectrum hogging) format to a more compressed digital signal.

Closing the Gap

These airwaves represent our last best chance to connect tens of millions of Americans to an open and affordable Internet. They can carry a wireless Internet signal through concrete buildings and over mountains – a signal that can single-handedly close the digital divide for people in both rural and urban America who are now being bypassed by the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast.

With the agency’s decision, however, it’s more likely that this same phone and cable cartel will use their political and financial muscle to control wireless Internet access in the country. The same companies already dictate “wired” broadband access for more than 96% of residential users.

These politically-connected corporations don’t see this new spectrum as a chance to blow open the marketplace. Rather they’ll squander it to protect the status quo – an Internet business model where Americans pay them higher prices for slower speeds compared to access in many Western European and Asian countries.

Open the Network, Unleashing Competition

Had the FCC opted to attach open conditions to these airwaves, the agency would have unleashed the creative forces of the marketplace onto an Internet that is now suffocating under the weight of a few cozy providers.

More than a quarter-million citizens filed comments to the FCC urging the agency to inject such broadband competition into the marketplace by creating a so-called “third pipe,” a national wireless Internet network to compete head-to-head with DSL and cable.

A proposal put before the agency by public advocates, consumer organizations and technology companies would have helped make this "third pipe" a reality. Their solution: create one nationwide wireless Internet license that would be offered to new competitors on a wholesale basis – a model known as "open access" that has proven immensely successful for European nations.

Repercussions from a Bad Decision

In America, open access would pry open the market to new businesses, start ups, entrepreneurs and providers, spurring competition and innovation while driving down costs to the consumer. It would be a boon for the mobile Internet, at a time when a flurry of new devices such as the iPhone are coming available to users.

Instead the FCC chose a course that will keep us behind the pace of countries that have embraced open networks.

Our last, best chance to propel us into an era of Internet innovation and creativity was squandered by an agency that too often confuses corporate welfare with public service.

The FCC decision should be a call to arms for consumer advocates, public interest groups, Internet entrepreneurs and concerned citizens across the country. Unless we amplify calls for true open access, the repercussions of this sell off of the airwaves will be felt for generations to come.

Google's Billion-Dollar Gambit Forces FCC's Hand on Open Access

I was encouraged on Wednesday when Google lined up behind a real notion of an open Internet -- taking a position that consumer advocates and public interest groups had long supported.

Now, the search giant is putting money -- in the amount of at least $4.6 billion - behind their pledge, agreeing to buy into a plan to bring real "open access" to America's wireless Internet.

Schmidt Ups the Ante

On Friday, Google CEO Eric Schmidt sent a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, stating that all companies licensed to use a soon-to-be-available chunk of the "700 MHz band" should provide (1) open applications, (2) open devices, (3) open wholesale services, and (4) open network access.

These four conditions are the true definition of open access, which has fostered innovation, competition and better user choice in Western Europe and Asia.

True Open Access

In the wireless world, open access would free millions of cell phone users to connect to an open Internet via any device or carrier. It would also blow open competition across wireless networks currently locked by a few dominant carriers.

Under such a system the new iPhone wouldn't need to be shackled to a carrier such as AT&T, which leverages exclusive control of the network to cripple many iPhone applications, stifle new ideas and competition in the marketplace and limit what users can do on the wireless Web.

Opening the 'Third Pipe'

Here's the kicker. Schmidt concludes in his letter, "should the Commission expressly adopt the four license conditions requested ... Google intends to commit a minimum of $4.6 billion to bidding in the upcoming auction."

Google's bid relates to the pending auction of a slice of the airwaves to be returned to the public by television broadcasters in 2009. By opening these airwaves to wholesale competition the FCC would spur the creation of a wireless Internet alternative to the entrenched cable and phone duopoly that controls high-speed "wired" connections for more than 96% of residential users in America.

Opening a "third pipe" of Internet access for American consumers is especially vital given the phone and cable company plan to discriminate against content over their land lines. If this threat becomes real, AT&T could strike a deal with a major retailer that would speed connections to the online shopping site Walmart.com, while degrading user's ability to surf to the Walmart protest site Walmartwatch.com.

By undoing Net Neutrality these Internet service providers seek to overhaul road rules that have kept the Internet a level playing field since its inception.

Calling Martin's Bluff

Martin Now Holds the Keys

Schmidt's billion-dollar guarantee handily erases the telco talking point that open access conditions would short the U.S. treasury billions of dollars in auction revenue -- as no company would be willing to bid on spectrum that's been tied to such requirements.

The $4.6 billion minimum likely came as a surprise to Chairman Martin who has been pushing a half-cocked notion of open access -- freeing devices to operate across networks but not freeing the networks for competition beyond the few companies that control wireless access today.

Missing from Martin's definition of open access is the provision that all license holders lease these airwaves on a wholesale basis -- a model that has sparked Internet innovation in France and elsewhere.

"Google's point is that high speed Internet access is just that -- access," explains Susan Crawford. "Google wants the pipes to be commoditized, to be as open as possible so that, like the Internet itself, this transport can make possible all kinds of innovation, economic growth, and creativity."

If smaller companies could gain access to a slice of the 700 MHz band, they would be able to offer services rivaling those of the telephone and cable giants, resulting in a consumer market with greater choices at lower costs. "When Americans can use the software and handsets of their choice, over open and competitive networks, they win," Schmidt wrote Martin.

Upping the Ante for a Better Internet

Google's move ups the ante at the FCC, according to Harold Feld of Media Access Project: "In a stroke, the Google letter changes the nature of the game. Google has now guaranteed that the feds will make their auction projections -- but only if they include real open access."

This is the position that certain SavetheInternet.com members - including the nation's leading consumer advocate and Internet rights groups -- put forth months ago when we urged the FCC to structure the auction to foster the development of high-speed wireless services to compete with the telephone and cable companies.

It makes perfect sense to us that this position is gaining currency in the business world as well.

New Report Busts Telco Myths about U.S. Internet

A report released today decisively shoots down many of the myths that telecommunications lobbyists and shills have manufactured about the health of America's Internet.

The report, "Shooting the Messenger," urges policymakers to focus on the real problems that have caused America to fall dangerously behind the rest of the world in Internet adoption -- competition and availability.

Mythmaker Mike McCurry

The report's authors at Free Press (my organization) believe the root of the problem to be the "cozy duopoly" of cable and broadband providers that stifle competition and innovation while driving costs to consumers through the roof.

These same companies -- including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- have unveiled plans to block or degrade Internet users' access to Web sites and services by erecting new toll booths on the Internet. This threat to Net Neutrality has compelled more than 1.6 million Americans to write Congress demanding legal protections for Internet freedom.

Earlier this week people from every corner of the country flooded the FCC with comments, 20 to one in support of full Net Neutrality protections.

Dismissing the Shills

Shooting the Messenger's findings dismiss many of telecommunications industry's excuses for America's failures compared to the rest of the world -- and prescribes policy solutions that would make our Internet more open, affordable and accessible to everyone.

Recent data from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranks the U.S. 15th in the world in broad penetration per capita, down from fourth in 2001 and 12th just six months ago. The OECD data is not alone. Reports from the International Telecommunications Union, United Nations and Communications Workers of America demonstrate nationwide problems with access, speed and affordability.

The near absolute control phone and cable giants have over America's Internet is being bolstered by a Washington establishment that's loath to upset this imbalance of power.

Papering Over Failures with Telco Talking Points

Instead of addressing America's digital decline, federal policymakers and industry representatives have attacked the methodology of researchers. Fully expect that they will 'shoot the messenger' in response to Free Press' new report or attempt to obscure the findings with a feckless veneer of telco talking points dressed up as independent research.

Report author S. Derek Turner said, "no amount of industry spin can excuse the problems caused by lack of broadband competition, or the irreparable harm to our economy if we fail to address the mounting crisis."

The Free Press report found that the critiques leveled at the OECD report fall apart under scrutiny. No matter how one measures broadband penetration the United States still ranks 15th among the 30 OECD nations. [For an understanding of how France has outpaced the U.S., read this article published today at BusinessWeek]

"There is absolutely no correlation between a country's population density and its broadband penetration," the report finds. Despite what telco shills have said, the geographical size of the United States doesn't explain the poor state of broadband adoption and availability."

According to Communications Daily, the Bush administration's top Internet official, NTIA Assistant Secretary John M.R. Kneuer, claimed that America has already met President Bush's goal of universal broadband access. Kneuer's based his claim on the recent increase in the availability of data-enabled cellular networks.

But a cell phone is no substitute for a true broadband connection -- "and if these phones were counted, the United States would fare even worse in the world rankings," the report finds.

The Solution: Competition, Accessibility and Neutrality

While U.S. consumers have at best two choices for a wired broadband connection, in Europe consumers have many choices -- sometimes dozens -- among providers on just a single platform.

Such competition brings new innovation into the market while driving down prices to the consumer. It also safeguards against the types of Net Neutrality abuses that the phone and cable duopoly explicitly have in store for American Net users.

"International rankings do matter," Turner said. "This is not just a point of pride. Each spot the United States slips represents billions in lost producer and consumer surplus, and potentially millions of real jobs lost to overseas workers."

The Prescription: Policies that Work

It's no surprise that those selling high-cost, low-speed broadband want to defend the status quo. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and their many Washington flacks are desperate to assert that everything is peachy in broadband land.

There's no need to upset a thriving free market, they crow, while quietly pressuring Washington to pass laws that lock in their near total control of our connections to the Net.

What's more worrying is the near total abdication by elected and government officials, who are allegedly in place to protect the public interest.

Policymakers who are serious about America's economic and social well-being should reject the distraction of excuses and focus on policies that bring open, affordable, high-speed broadband access to all Americans.

The public has already spoken out on the issue. We don't need more federal handouts to industry, but policies that work for us all.

-- My original post

Open Access is the Real 'Revolution.' The iPhone is Nothing Without It.

The slick ads for Apple's "revolutionary" new iPhone promise to "put the Internet in your pocket." But the only way to get one of these gadgets is to sign on with AT&T -- which limits what you can do and where you can go on the wireless Web.

You don't have to own an iPhone to know why this problem persists: The big mobile phone companies lock their devices so they won't work on other networks, cripple innovative new applications, stifle competition and restrict access to their "preferred" content.

Launching the FreetheiPhone.org campaign

Think about it. The cable company doesn't tell you what kind of TV to buy. You can plug any toaster into the wall at home without the power company's permission. Whether you have a PC or Mac, you still can go wherever you want on the Web. Why shouldn't your mobile phone work the same way?

Ma Bell Doesn't Work

On Wednesday Professor Tim Wu testified before Congress that there’s "something weird" about America’s wireless market. "It's not like consumer electronics or software markets. It’s not like the Internet.” Instead he compared the current wireless market to the old vestiges of the AT&T monopoly model. “It's that model which has failed us.”

But it doesn't have to be this way.

Today, my group Free Press launched FreetheiPhone.org – a campaign to demand an open, competitive wireless Internet for everyone.

While the iPhone is the current fascination, this issue goes well beyond one single gadget. It's about a dysfunctional wireless system that stifles innovation and competition across the country, while stemming the free flow of information we need.

Real Open Access

What we need is real "open access." Real open access unlocks networks for innovation and wholesale markets for competition. Until we have this, the iPhone – and wireless handheld gizmos like it -- will never reach their full potential.

Earlier this week Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin reportedly proposed something that is a small gesture towards open access. His plans would allow for device interoperability -- imposing what's known as Carterfone principles on a sliver of the spectrum. Merely unlocking devices is only a half-step in the right direction; it leaves us with the same few companies that are trying to undercut innovation and leave us with a slow, expensive network and a vast digital divide.

They can get away with this because there's not real competition. You should be able to unlock your device and use it on any network. You should be able to choose from many providers, competing for your business with better service, lower prices and new innovations. And you should be able to access all content and services without interference from corporate gatekeepers like AT&T or Verizon Wireless.

Breaking Open the Spectrum

That's real open access and politicians in Washington have the power to grant this wireless freedom.

Martin's FCC is about to auction off a valuable portion of the public airwaves that could connect tens of million of Americans to a real open access Internet. This "spectrum" – the 700 MHz band – is so powerful it can carry wireless internet signals through concrete buildings and over mountains. It could connect tens of million of Americans to the new mobile Internet via cheaper gadgets that work in every corner of the country.

"I think that we have a great opportunity with the 700 megahertz to create an open platform that will make sure that we have competition and choice and innovation in the future," Rep. "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.) said earlier this week.

"Openness is creating a wholesale market. It is creating interoperability for devices so that you can use a device, whether it’s an iPhone or another device, with whatever function you choose. If you want to go to a Wi-Fi or WiMax spot and use it, or if you want to have the access to other networks, you can do so. That’s openness in wholesale."

Pickering is joined across the aisle by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in support of a growing consensus for real open access in America. These two powerful congressmen sit on the subcommittee that – with the FCC -- will help determine the future of the mobile Internet in America.

They need to know that the public cares.

If we open up our airwaves to new competitors, protect your freedom to go where you want online, and unchain the devices --- not just the iPhone but whatever comes next -- we can create a new kind of mobile Internet, one that is truly open and accessible to all.

Members of Congress Call for iPhone Freedom

Bipartisan members of Congress spoke out Wednesday to free the iPhone and other next generation hand-held computers from the grip of phone incumbent like AT&T and Verizon.

During the hearing of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, representatives from both sides of the aisle called for a more open wireless system where new innovations aren't held hostage to the competition-killing carriers that control the network.

Users 'Trapped'

Click to watch Markey's opening statement

In what's been dubbed the "iPhone hearing" Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and "Chip" Pickering (R-Miss.) called for a different system – where wholesalers could compete and new applications and devices could be connected regardless of carrier.

"The iPhone highlights both the promise and the problems with the wireless industry today," Rep. Markey said holding up before other members his newly acquired iPhone. "On the one hand, it demonstrates the sheer brilliance and wizardry of wireless engineering. On the other hand, the advent of the iPhone raises questions about the fact that a consumer can’t use this phone with other wireless carriers."

Markey highlighted myriad problems with our wireless marketplace, where "many consumers feel trapped having bought an expensive device or having been locked into a long-term contract with significant penalties for switching."

Representative Pickering called for more openness in the marketplace stating that "openness is creating a wholesale market" for competition between services.

"Openness is creating interoperability for devices so that you can use a device, whether it's an iPhone or another device, with whatever function you choose," the Mississippi Republican said. "If you want to go to a Wi-Fi or WiMax spot and use it, or if you want to have the access to other networks, you can do so. That's openness in wholesale."

'Calcified' Markets

Markey and Pickering spoke about the current dilemma in America's wireless system. The iPhone is shackled to AT&T and won't work on any other network. The reason? We have allowed carriers to exert almost complete gatekeeper control over all devices, services and content in the wireless sector.

This has left the U.S. generations behind other nations, a failure that prompted New York Times blogger David Pogue to call American carriers "calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts."

Regulations That Work

Click to watch Devitt's testimony

"I'm a small business owner. I don't like regulators," Jason Devitt, co-Founder and CEO of Skydeck testified during the hearing.

"In the context of wireless spectrum I do not have a choice between no regulations and regulations. We have a choice between badly written regulations and regulations that work."

'Mad as Hell'

Devitt continues:

"[I] flew here from Silicon Valley to tell you that we have a regulatory system that doesn't work and the only way we're going to fix it is if you have some form of open access …

"I am an entrepreneur and I am mad as hell that I require permission to innovate in the wireless market. I don't have to go to the great companies that built our public highways and ask them for their views for what kind of cars I can put on those roads…

"For some reason I have never been able to understand, I have to ask permission of Verizon Wireless to attach a computer or the computers that they now call phones to their wireless networks and I have to ask their permission to run applications and services on those phones."

DeWitt told representatives that we can fix the problem through open access regulation. "By open access, essentially it's what Mr. Pickering said, it is the opportunity to attach any device to the network. It is the opportunity to run any service on the network."

Spectrum Oligopoly

Click to watch Wu's testimony

Professor Tim Wu of Columbia University testified that there's "something weird" about America's wireless market.

"It's not like consumer electronics or software markets. It's not like the Internet," he said comparing the current wireless market to the old vestiges of the AT&T monopoly model. "It's that model which has failed us."

Professor Wu said that the one area that America has not been a technical leader is in the wireless space. "We have allowed one way or another there to be a spectrum-based oligopoly in wireless that has controlled innovation," he said. "This Congress and the FCC has a duty to set us back to a direction towards and open market."

Wu recommended that the U.S. implement wireless Carterphone principles and create an open access standard across the spectrum so that the next iPhone isn't held captive by a locked system.

Our Last, Best Chance for an Open Network

These concerns echo actions by the SavetheInternet.com Coalition to open the upcoming government auction of valuable radio spectrum.

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, devices and access alternatives.

In June, more than a quarter million SavetheInternet.com supporters put the FCC on the spot when they flooded the agency with comments and urged Chairman Kevin Martin to open these airwaves to wholesalers and Net Neutrality.

The upcoming auction has moved the debate over open networks and Net Neutrality to the wireless industry where carriers exert multiple layers of control over services, applications, devices and content. Their stranglehold on wireless has chilled innovation across the sector while shackling cell-phone users to pricey contracts, phones and termination fees -- severely limiting choice across the market

The airwaves on the block are frequencies being vacated by television broadcasters as they switch to digital signals. The auction is our last, great chance to create a "third pipe" for Internet access in a wired line marketplace that is controlled by many of the same companies that hold the wireless market in their grip.

Join the Fight

Coalition groups such as Consumers Union, Media Access Project, Free Press and Public Knowledge are fighting for both wireless and wired line freedom in the broadest sense.

In the wireless world this includes the freedom to use any device on any network, the freedom to choose among competing providers and the freedom to access any content or services without gatekeeper interference.

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.