Here's the debate last month over whether Internet access and social media are tools for fomenting revolution or facilitating crackdowns. There wasn't much of a debate really as we all agreed that it's very complicated. The debate was moderated by Jim Harper, Director of Information Policy Studies at Cato and featured Christopher Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at Cato Institute, Alex Howard, of Gov2.0 and O'Reilly Media, and me.
Beginning at 13:00, I compare the imposing of democracy in Iraq c. 2003 to the bubbling up of democracy in Egypt c. 2011 -- an issue I think deserves more discussion. Watch it and let me know what you think.
On Monday, House Speaker John Boehner (R - AT&T) chose the occasion of his first address outside Washington to take aim at Net Neutrality.
While the speaker may have traveled 650 miles to Nashville to deliver this attack, his speech came from the far reaches of the solar system, detached from the space-time continuum that keeps us earthlings rooted to reality.
"The FCC is creeping further into the free market by trying to regulate the Internet," the speaker said referring to the agency's Open Internet rules issued last December.
"'Network neutrality,' they call it. It's a series of regulations that empower the federal bureaucracy to regulate Internet content and viewpoint discrimination," he imagined, pledging to use the full powers at his disposal "to fight [this] government takeover of the Internet."
The speaker's bold stand for free speech would be inspirational if it were connected to reality in any way. Instead, he is parroting talking points from industry lobbyists, and tea Party front groups to intentionally misleading the public.
Open Internet protections actually prevent Speaker Boehner's dark scenario from happening: They forbid companies from unfairly blocking or degrading Internet websites and applications while keeping control over Internet content in the hands of end users -- people like you and me.
The speaker knows full well that real Net Neutrality has nothing to do with a government takeover of the Internet. He's playing dog-whistle politics and stoking irrational fears of government repression, while raking in campaign contributions from the phone and cable companies.
In the Nashville audience was Marsha Blackburn (R - Verizon), the member of Congress who has introduced legislation to strip the FCC of any Net Neutrality protection powers.
Speaker Boehner is also working alongside Rep. Greg Walden (R - NCTA) who has introduced a congressional resolution of disapproval that would reverse the FCC's past Net Neutrality rules and prohibit the agency from acting in any way as a watchdog of the open Internet.
Their plan to ban Net Neutrality would hand over our freedom to connect and speak freely via the web to Comcast, Verizon and AT&T - with no recourse for the public when they block any content they don't like for any reason.
Speaker Boehner knows this to be true, but telling the truth won't help his patrons on "K" Street.
Netjacking
According to reports on Monday, cable operator and Internet service provider Mediacom has been caught hijacking its users' browsers and injecting unsolicited ads.
Disturbingly the ads themselves seem targeted to the individual user interests of the companies more than 750,000 broadband subscribers. According to Karl Bode of DSLReports, Mediacom "has apparently implemented deep packet inspection and DNS redirection advertising technology our users say is difficult to opt out of."
For those not familiar with deep packet inspection, or DPI, it's a technology that allows network managers to spy on, track and target user Internet content as our communications pass through routers along the Information Superhighway.
Using DPI is akin to having toll booth collectors inspect the contents of your car trunk to determine where you're going and what billboards you will see alongside the highway.
Screen shots taken by Mediacom users show a large banner ad for Mediacom's own discount phone service placed above the top of third-party Web page content, including Apple.com and Google.com.
Mediacom's actions are yet another example of a cable company interfering with its subscribers' use of the Internet.
Like Comcast and Charter before it, Mediacom's actions reveal the gatekeeper tendencies of network operators.
If Boehner and his cronies succeed in eliminating online consumer protections, these corporation won't hesitate to monitor user traffic and meddle with our digital freedoms.
Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Usher pocketed millions in blood money from the Qaddafi family to perform at lavishly corrupt private parties on the Caribbean island of St. Barts.
According to a recent report in the New York Times, Mariah Carey was paid $1 million in 2009 to sing just four songs for Gaddafi's son Seif. One year later Usher and Beyonce received an equally large sum to sing at a New Year's party thrown by the family.
The Qaddafi’s have ransacked the Libyan treasury, making off with billions of dollars in oil money, while imposing a crackdown against any Libyan who speaks out against their corruption and brutality. Former music industry executive Howie Klein put it best: “For very, very wealthy American and British pop stars to take part in this kind of thing makes me want to puke."
If Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Usher have any sense of justice or decency, they should reject the Qaddafi payment and put the dirty money to work in service of a greater good.
There is no question: accepting stolen money from murderous dictators is morally repugnant. Keeping it after the Qaddafi’s engage in the slaughter of democracy protestors is downright unconscionable.
Retweet this Twitter petition to pressure Beyonce, Maria Carey and Usher to put their ill-gotten gains in service of a greater cause: to help relieve the suffering of the people of Libya.
A number of organizations are working to protect democracy movements across the Middle East. They could help save hundreds of lives with the sort of money that’s now sitting in the bank accounts of these three celebrities. (I have listed a few possible recipients below).
To salvage their reputations and make good on a horrible mistake, Beyonce, Maria Carey and Usher should do the same and donate Qaddafi's dirty cash to these well deserving institutions or others.
AccessNow.org: A leader in the new global movement for Digital Freedom.
Reporters Without Borders: Protecting the freedom to be informed and inform others throughout the world.
FreedomBox Foundation: Creating a distributed global network to protect free speech.
Global Voices Advocacy: Seeking to build a global anti-censorship network of bloggers and online activists.
Human Rights Watch: Dedicated to defending and protecting human rights worldwide.
UPDATE 1: Earlier on Monday, pop singer Nelly Furtado Tweeted that she would be contributing to charity the $1 million she received from the Qaddafi family for a private performance in Italy in 2007. What say you, Beyonce, Mariah and Usher?
UPDATE 2: Later on Monday, Atlantic Wire and Rolling Stone quoted R.E.M. agent Buck Williams urging the singers to give Qaddafi's payment to charity.
Arcade Fire agent David T. Viecelli adds, "Hopefully donate it to a charity that somehow assists some of the people who have suffered at the hands of that regime."
Denis Afra, the agent for Metallica, Billy Joel, and Rod Stewart, gave a bleak view of musicians who get paid for these types of private performances: "I don't think most artists go into [performing at a party like this] with that kind of in-depth focus, [of] how each country is governed and what goes on inside each country," he says. "Not every artist is a humanitarian. In more cases than not, for people, greed rules."
UPDATE 3 -- Beyonce Donates: Beyonce's publcisit told Associated Press on Wednesday that the singer gave her entire Qaddafi earnings to help support relief efforts in Haiti. According to the report Beyoncé was paid as much as $2m to perform her set, footage of which can be seen on YouTube. I have yet to find evidence to confirm this donation. Stay tuned.
UPDATE 4 -- Mariah to Donate: Mariah Carey just admitted she felt "horrible and embarrassed" about being paid $1 million to sing for the Qaddafis, She announced plans to donate the proceeds from a new song "Save the Day" to human rights causes and may even set up her own charitable foundation.
"Ultimately we as artists are to be held accountable," she said in a statement. Going forward, this is a lesson for all artists to learn from. We need to be more aware and take more responsibility regardless of who books our shows."
UPDATE 5 -- Usher to Donate: Usher announced on Friday that he would give away the money he received for his performance for Qaddafi's son in 2009. "I am sincerely troubled to learn about the circumstances surrounding the Nikki Beach St. Barts event that took place on New Year's Eve 2009," he said in a statement. "I will be donating all of my personal proceeds from that event to various human rights organizations."
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday highlighted new U.S. Internet freedom policy that is designed to help democracy movements gain access to open networks and speak out against authoritarian regimes.
According to Clinton, the program will provide $25 million in new grants to support "technologists and activists working at the cutting edge of the fight against Internet repression."
It will help fund efforts like circumvention and encryption services, which enable users to evade Internet blockades, and technology to wipe sensitive data from cell phones when activists are detained by security forces.
Protecting Our Freedom to Connect
In a speech seen as a follow-up to her 2010 address on the issue, Clinton reasserted the administration's belief in our universal "freedom to connect," something the Secretary of State and the White House see as a natural extension of our longstanding rights to free speech, assembly and association.
Her remarks carried a heightened sense of urgency in light of events still unfolding across the Middle East.
Clinton said the Internet was both an "accelerant of political and social change" and a "force for repression." She called for a global commitment to Internet freedom. "The freedoms to assemble and associate also apply in cyberspace," she said.
Clinton urged countries everywhere to bet that "an open Internet will lead to stronger, more prosperous countries... that open societies give rise to lasting progress."
But her call for unfettered and uncensored access to the Internet around the globe needs to resonate here at home as well.
No Double Standard at Home
The Obama administration's recent failure to stand up for a strong Net Neutrality rules, its slow-footed response to the export of invasive snooping technologies, and apparent reluctance to abandon the idea of an Internet "kill switch" all suggest a double standard in what the administration seeks for foreign governments and what it will accept in the United States.
At the end of 2010, Obama's FCC distanced itself from the president's prior commitment "to take a back seat to no one" in his support for Net Neutrality. Instead of ensuring openness on wireless Internet devices like the iPhone and Droid, the FCC exempted the mobile Internet from vital openness protections.
This move enshrines Verizon and AT&T as gatekeepers to the expanding world of the mobile Web. And both have a checkered past when it comes to protecting our right to connect.
In 2007, Verizon blocked text messages sent by Naral Pro-Choice America to its members. The move put Verizon in the same league as its cohorts at AT&T, which in August that same year censored the live Webcast of a Pearl Jam performance that included criticism of then President George W. Bush.
Comcast, the nation's largest cable Internet provider was caught blocking users' ability to connect to one another and trade files using popular BitTorrent software.
And the issues go beyond the administration's unwillingness to face down corporations that block our connections. Just hours before Secretary Clinton's speech, Justice Department lawyers urged a federal magistrate in Alexandria, Virginia, to uphold a court order requiring Twitter to turn over confidential information about the use of its services by three WikiLeaks supporters.
It's hard to claim the moral high road and presume to lecture other countries on the importance of online freedom when your own promise to defend it at home takes a backseat to corporate meddling and government interference.
And it's even harder to stomach such rhetoric when U.S. companies are exporting deep-packet inspection technology that's used to spy on democracy activists, or the administration seems intent on reserving the power to shut down our communications networks.
While Clinton's call for uninterrupted access to the Internet -- and its now famous offspring Facebook, Twitter and Youtube -- is laudable, we need to be consistent and do better in our policies both at home and abroad.
Since I broke the story on Jan. 28 that the U.S. company Narus has been selling Internet spying software to Egypt, members of Congress and other government officials have become increasingly alarmed -- and some are even calling for investigations.
On Thursday, during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bill Keating (D-MA) grilled Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg on the sale of this Internet spying technology to an Egyptian Internet provider controlled by the Mubarak regime.
To recap, Narus is a Sunnyvale, California, Internet surveillance and filtering company begun by Israeli security experts, and subsequently bought by Boeing. The company has nefarious links to the NSA, and to AT&T efforts to monitor phone communications domestically.
Among Narus' many cyber-sleuthing products is one called "Hone," which can filter through billions of packets of online data to target individuals on social networks and then link that information to their "VOIP conversations, biometrically identify someone's voice or photograph and then associate it with different phone numbers." Those using cell phones or Wi-Fi connections can then be located geographically.
Narus has sold similar spying technology, not only to Egypt, but also to telecom authorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, countries known for their brutal repression of political dissidents.
Over the last two weeks, other journalists -- including those at the San Francisco Chronicle and Seattle Times –- have asked Narus to respond to our report, but the company has refused to comment. Al Jazeera sent a correspondent and camera crew to their offices to be turned away at the door. Here’s the video of that encounter.
In yesterday's hearing, Rep. Smith had the following exchange with Deputy Secretary Steinberg:
Rep. Smith:I’d like to ask you about a very disturbing report that an American company, Narus, has sold the Egyptian Government what is called Deep Packet Inspection technology, highly advanced technology that allows the purchasers to search the content of emails as they pass through the Internet routers.
The report is from an NGO called Free Press and it is based on information that Narus itself has revealed about its business.
Now there’s no way of knowing whether this information that the Egyptian Government gleaned from its Narus technology enabled it to identify, track down and harass or detain so many journalists or anybody else in Egypt. I would like to know what we know about this company – and it is part of Boeing, recently bought. What can you tell us about Narus and this invasion of privacy in the Internet?
Deputy Secretary Steinberg:… I’m unfamiliar with the company that you have identified but I’d be happy to see what we know about this.
Smith:Could you dig into that and get back to the committee? It’s very important. It goes to the whole issue of increasingly that U.S. Corporations are enabling dictatorships… It is an awful tool of repression and Narus, according to these reports, is enabling this invasion of privacy...
Rep. Keating continued the questioning, going so far as to say that "people are losing their lives based on this technology."
Keating called on Steinberg to investigate American companies that sell this sort of Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) technology overseas. He expressed particular concern about a "company in California [that] sold the Egyptian state-run Internet provider the technology to monitor the Internet allowing the Egyptian government to crack down on dissent."
Deputy Secretary Steinberg, again, promised to follow up.
In a subsequent press statement, Keating pledged to introduce legislation "that would provide a national strategy to prevent the use of American technology from being used by human rights abusers."
In particular, Keating wants to create a requirement that DPI companies strike "end-user monitoring agreements" with their overseas buyers that would help ensure that the technology does not fall into the hands of repressive regimes intent stifling free speech and repressing Internet protesters.
"We should have the same safeguards -- such as end user monitoring agreements -- that we do when we sell weapons abroad,” according to Keating. Stay tuned for his legislation that could do just that.
"...we must find ways to make human rights a reality. Today, we find an urgent need to protect these freedoms on the digital frontiers of the 21st century... The final freedom, one that was probably inherent in what both President and Mrs. Roosevelt thought about and wrote about [the "Four Freedoms"]: the freedom to connect -- the idea that governments should not prevent people from connecting to the internet, to websites, or to each other. The freedom to connect is like the freedom of assembly, only in cyberspace. It allows individuals to get online, come together, and hopefully cooperate."
"...here are certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns. And that I think is no less true in the Arab world than it is here in the United States."
“It is [the White House’s] strong belief that inside of the framework of basic individual rights, are the rights of those to have access to the internet and to sites for open communication and social network.”
The power of unfettered Internet access and social network is playing out in the blossoming of freedom movements worldwide -- especially during the 2009 protests in Iran, and in Tunisia and Egypt earlier this year.
But the power of the Internet cuts both ways. The technology that fuels democracy movements worldwide can also be turned against them as a tool of repression:
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak turned off the Internet as soon as it became clear that millions were using the network to organize and speak out against his regime. Earlier, authorities in Nepal and Burma had attempted the same.
China recently and successfully deployed technology to stifle expressions of support for Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo among bloggers and users of social media in their country.
North American and European countries are freely selling technology to repressive regimes that allows them to spy on their citizens, cut off their communications and even locate them for arrest; and the list goes on.
Whether Internet access should be a basic human right has been debated among open Internet wonks and advocates for some time now. But we're only now seeing this rhetoric being repeated at the highest levels of U.S. government.
One thing is now beyond debate. The open exchange of information via Internet networks is having a positive impact for freedom movements worldwide. "This is both a practical and ethical belief," Twitter co-founder Biz Stone wrote in the wake of the Egyptian protests.
Let's focus on the practical side. If American leaders agree that Internet access should be a basic human right, what now must we do make that a meaningful reality?
Article 19 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom . . . to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." But do non-binding declarations go far enough?
The open Internet's role in popular uprising is now undisputed. Look no further than Egypt, where the Mubarak regime shut down Internet and cell phone communications -- a troubling predictor of the fierce crackdown that followed.
What's even more troubling is news that one American company is aiding Egypt's harsh response through sales of technology that makes this repression possible.
The Internet's favorite offspring -- Twitter, Facebook and YouTube -- are now heralded on CNN, BBC and Fox News as flag-bearers for a new era of citizen journalism and activism. (More and more these same news organizations have abandoned their own, more traditional means of newsgathering to troll social media for breaking information.)
But the open Internet's power cuts both ways: The tools that connect, organize and empower protesters can also be used to hunt them down.
Telecom Egypt, the nation's dominant phone and Internet service provider, is a state-run enterprise, which made it easy on Friday morning for authorities to pull the plug and plunge much of the nation into digital darkness.
Moreover, Egypt also has the ability to spy on Internet and cell phone users, by opening their communication packets and reading their contents. Iran used similar methods during the 2009 unrest to track, imprison and in some cases, "disappear" truckloads of cyber-dissidents.
The companies that profit from sales of this technology need to be held to a higher standard. One in particular is an American firm, Narus of Sunnyvale, Calif., which has sold Telecom Egypt "real-time traffic intelligence" equipment.
Narus, now owned by Boeing, was founded in 1997 by Israeli security experts to create and sell mass surveillance systems for governments and large corporate clients.
The company is best known for creating NarusInsight, a supercomputer system which is allegedly used by the National Security Agency and other entities to perform mass surveillance and monitoring of public and corporate Internet communications in real time.
Other Narus global customers include the national telecommunications authorities in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia -- two countries that regularly register alongside Egypt near the bottom of Human Rights Watch's world report.
Anything that comes through (an Internet protocol network), we can record," Steve Bannerman, Narus' marketing vice president, once boasted to Wired about the service. "We can reconstruct all of their e-mails along with attachments, see what web pages they clicked on; we can reconstruct their (Voice Over Internet Protocol) calls."
Other North American and European companies are selling DPI to enable their business customers "to see, manage and monetize individual flows to individual subscribers." But this "Internet-enhancing" technology has been sought out by regimes in Iran, China and Burma for more brutal purposes.
In addition to Narus, there are a number of companies, including many others in the United States, that produce and traffic in similar spying and control technology. This list of DPI providers includes Cisco (USA), Procera Networks (USA), Allot (Israel), Ixia (USA), AdvancedIO (Canada) and Sandvine (Canada), among others.
These companies typically partner with Internet Service Providers to insert DPI along the main arteries of the Web. All Net traffic in and out of Iran, for example, travels through one portal -- the Telecommunications Company of Iran -- which facilitates the use of DPI.
When commercial network operators use DPI, the privacy of Internet users is compromised. But in government hands, the use of DPI can crush dissent and lead to human rights violations.
Setting the Bar High for DPI Sales
Even Republicans and Democrats seem to agree on this problem.
"Internet censorship is a real challenge, and not one any particular industry -- much less any single company -- can tackle on its own, " Rep. Mary Bono Mack wrote in a 2009 letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, then chair of the House Commerce Committee. "Efforts to promote freedom of expression and to limit the impact of censorship require both private and public sector engagement."
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton urged Egypt's government "not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media."
Bono Mack's letter and Clinton's statement echo Free Press' call for a congressional inquiry into the issue. But this is just a start.
Before DPI becomes more widely deployed around the world and at home, the Congress ought to establish clear criteria for authorizing the use of such surveillance and control technologies.
The power to control the Internet and the resulting harm to democracy are so disturbing that the threshold for using DPI must be very high.
Today we're seeing the grave dangers of this technology unfold in real time on the streets of Cairo.
= = = = = UPDATE ONE: I appeared on Al Jazeera English. They sent a reporter to the Narus offices only to be turned away at the door. Apparently Narus believes that this issue will go away by simply ignoring the many media inquiries. (Reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle and the Seattle Times have told me that Narus has refused to respond to their inquiries as well.)
= = = = = UPDATE TWO: This article in February 6 Daily Mail indicates that activist Twitter and Facebook accounts are being tracked by the state security police.
= = = = = UPDATE THREE: Gordon Crovitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "Western telecommunications companies were instrumental in closing off the Internet in the country almost entirely," forced to abide by Egyptian telecom law which "gives the country access to networks during a state of emergency."
Then there was this:
In 2009, [Vodafone] gave Egyptian authorities data to identify participants in the previous year's antigovernment riots. More than 20 people were arrested. "Regulation can be a Trojan horse," Annie Mullins, Vodafone's head of global content standards, explained at the time. "For parts of the world that aren't subject to democracy, regulation can be used as a masquerade for state intrusion."
And what of corporate compliance with such crackdowns? Mullins does not answer.
= = = = = UPDATE FOUR: AOL contributor Marty Phillips-Sandy profiles one outspoken online activist who was detained by security forces, allegedly, for using Facebook to organize protests.
= = = = = UPDATE FIVE: Marko Papic and Sean Noonan (of SRATFOR) mention President Obama's YouTube interview where he mentions our basic right to connect. I dug this up and transcribed the Q&A (You can watch it here. The segment begins at 16:50):
YouTube Question: Dear President Obama, Regarding the current situation in the Middle East & Egypt over the past two days, what do you think about the Egyptian Government blocking social networks to prevent people from expressing their opinions?
Obama: Well, let me say first of all that Egypt has been an ally of ours on a lot of critical issues. They made peace with Israel. President Mubarak has always been helpful on a range of tough issues in the Middle East. But I have always said to him that making sure that they are moving forward on reform, on political reform, economic reform is absolutely critical to the long term well-being of Egypt…
I think that it is very important that people have mechanisms in order to express legitimate grievances. As I said in my State of the Union speech, there are certain core values that we believe in as Americans that we believe are universal, freedom of speech, freedom of expression, people being able to use social networking or any other mechanisms to communicate with each other and express their concerns. And that I think is no less true in the Arab world than it is here in the United States.
Community radio station advocates have fought for 10 years to free up unused spaces on the FM dial for new, local and independent radio stations. Today, Congress is on the cusp of sending the Local Community Radio Act to the president. If signed, this bill would clear the way for hundreds, if not thousands, of new FM (known as LPFM) stations in cities and towns nationwide.
But one of the most powerful lobbying forces in Washington, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), is standing in the way.
The NAB represents the interests of powerful broadcast conglomerates, the sort of companies that have drowned the airwaves in cookie-cutter playlists and talk personalities while downsizing local content. This consolidation of ownership of radio licenses helped ushered in an era of nationally syndicated radio voices including Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
In a last-ditch effort to keep their stranglehold on the public airwaves, these corporate lobbyists have strong-armed a few Senators to place holds on the bill and keep local voices off the air. They claimed that a station at 3 clicks away on the dial or closer to a bigger station would cause interference, despite years of engineering study and practice proving that this was not true.
We need more voices and choices on the air. Without LPFM stations local music and culture may disappear from the dial completely. Coverage of local politics or crises has dwindled to a point of near irrelevance. LPFM stations could create a new forum for local political discourse.
The NAB must stop blocking access to the public airwaves and make local radio a reality for millions of people.
Sign and Retweet this act.ly petition to take action right now and join the new radio pioneers at Prometheus Radio Project to return local spectrum to the locals.
We would like to commend Chairman Genachowski, and everyone at the Commission, who have worked tirelessly to craft what we believe to be a fair resolution to these complex and controversial policy issues. We also want to thank the many Members of Congress who, on a bipartisan basis, urged the Commission to take a less regulatory path in order to ensure that the Internet continues its vibrant growth and development.
We believe Chairman Genachowski’s proposal, as described this morning, strikes a workable balance between the needs of the marketplace and the certainty that carefully-crafted and limited rules can provide to ensure that Internet freedom and openness are preserved.
Based on our understandings, this measure would avoid onerous Title II regulation; would be narrowly drawn along the lines of a compromise we have endorsed previously; would reject limits on our ability to properly manage our network and efficiently utilize our wireless spectrum; would recognize the capabilities and limitations of different broadband technologies; would ensure specialized services are protected against intrusive regulation; and would provide for a case-by-case resolution of complaints that also encourages non-governmental dispute settlement.
Verizon appreciates the efforts of Chairman Genachowski to seek a consensus on the contentious issue of net neutrality… [W]e urge the commissioners to recognize the limitations of the current statute and the rapidly changing conditions in the marketplace and make any rules it adopts interim, rather than permanent. Specifically, the commission should consider the framework of the Waxman proposal, including its sunset provision.
By Michele Combs and Timothy Karr. Originally published at The Hill
As he prepares to take on the role of House Speaker, Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) has pledged to bring a new era of bipartisanship to Congress. "I think the best leaders are very good listeners," said Boehner in October. "Because if you are not listening, you cannot lead."
President Obama responded in kind: "Let's go ahead and start making some progress on the things that we do agree on," he said, "And we can continue to have a strong and healthy debate about those areas where we don't."
Here’s their best chance to listen and lead together: Republicans, Democrats and nearly every one across the political spectrum agree that opening our radio dial to more local voices is good for the country.
That’s why 86 Republicans and Democrats joined together to sponsor the Local Community Radio Act in the House, where it sailed through on a voice vote. And it’s why Republican Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) joined with Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.) to introduce the act in the Senate.
Groups as different as Free Press and the Christian Coalition agree that passing the Local Community Radio Act should be a no-brainer. It would free up unused radio spectrum for hundreds and possibly thousands of new local stations. Known as Low Power FM (LPFM), these stations operate at 100 watts or less and broadcast just a few miles into local communities. They’re typically run by colleges, churches, schools and nonprofits to provide local information and perspectives not available elsewhere on the dial.
From saving lives during Hurricane Katrina to broadcasting local church services to homebound community members, these stations have more than demonstrated their importance to communities nationwide. Without them, so many of our small cities, towns and rural areas would not have a voice on the radio at all.
So what’s the problem? Last month, one senator, John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), quietly placed a hold on the bill. Sen. Barrasso cited concerns that were similar to those raised by the National Association of Broadcasters, a powerful lobby that represents the interest of commercial broadcasters. But the NAB’s objections are based on misplaced notions of signal interference that were debunked long ago following an exhaustive study of LPFM broadcasting.
Barrasso’s own constituents stand to benefit greatly from the legislation; opening the radio spectrum over Wyoming would create airspace for dozens of new stations from Cheyenne to Cody. The same is true in every other state with significant rural populations.
We can’t allow the obstinacy of a few to get in the way of legislation that promises to benefit so many.
The Local Community Radio Act has only an upside. Passing it would be a meaningful step toward bipartisanship at a time when our nation desperately needs to go beyond politics as usual to a place where we can all work together.
-- Michele Combs is the vice president of communications for the Christian Coalition of America. Timothy Karr is the campaign director for Free Press the national media reform group.
Comcast wants you to trust them -- to really, really trust them.
That's why the company's top lobbyist, David Cohen, convened what could best be described as a Kumbaya sing-along in Washington on Monday, to declare Net Neutrality an issue over which Washington needn't concern itself any longer.
"It's time to put this [Net Neutrality] debate behind us," he told an audience of D.C. insiders at the Brookings Institution. "Check the box and move on."
Now, don't think this means Comcast has changed its tune on the importance of the open Internet. It's still trying to kill Net Neutrality. It's just making a softer sell to convince Washington to forget about protecting the rights of Internet users.
"The courts, the FCC, and the Congress -- all valuable institutions filled with capable, conscientious people ... but few of them with the background to work out consensus on what are essentially complicated technical issues," Cohen said.
To whom, then, should we turn to look out for the public interest? Why, the industry itself. According to Cohen, "real self-regulation" with the assistance of an industry-formed advisory group is the answer.
Minding the Hen House
The advisory group Cohen has in mind, known as BITAG, was quickly cobbled together by Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, Microsoft, Intel and other major industry players in June 2010 -- just as the Federal Communications Commission was starting to craft rules to safeguard Internet users from an industry push to exert more control over Web content and applications.
Never mind that BITAG's list of charter members includes the biggest violators of Net Neutrality -- not least of all, Comcast.
To that end, Cohen skimmed over Comcast's covert campaign to block peer-to-peer users on its network -- for which it was sanctioned by the FCC.
Cohen would like us to forget that it was Comcast that was caught red-handed blocking lawful Internet traffic in 2007, and that then lied about what it was doing. It was Comcast that tried to evade scrutiny by obstructing public participation in an FCC hearing investigating its Internet blocking. And when the FCC forced the company to stop discriminating against its customers, without even levying a fine, it was Comcast that sued on a technicality to avoid any accountability.
But in an effort to whitewash its record of underhanded activity, Cohen claimed that the public reaction to this debacle taught the company a lesson about being better self-regulators.
"In retrospect," he said, "we made the wrong decision for the right reasons." Though those who were blocked from sharing barbershop quartet music and the King James Bible might remember things differently.
Bygones, said Cohen, who now claims Comcast was vindicated and can be trusted with the fate of your Internet -- and of NBC Universal, which it hopes to acquire.
Fear and Self-Loathing in Washington
"Unfortunately, the national debate around Net Neutrality and an 'open Internet' has been almost exclusively driven by lawyers," declared Cohen (who is a lawyer). In fact, Comcast hates lawyers so much that the company employs at least 100 of them from 30 different D.C. firms to lobby Washington to get its way.
All of Cohen's lip service about consensus would be more palatable if his company hadn't poured so much money into astroturf front groups and lobbyists determined to undermine all efforts to encourage fair competition and a level playing field online.
The only thing you can trust about Comcast is that it seeks to boost its bottom line and serve shareholders by any means possible. That's the nature of corporations. And naturally, the public shouldn't expect corporations like Comcast to look out for its best interests.
Public policy is designed for that role -- to make it profitable for corporations to behave in ways that don't harm the rest of us. The only thing that will keep Comcast honest is clear rules of the road and a real watchdog such as the FCC to enforce them.
And Why That Poses an Even Bigger Threat to Keith Olbermann
Keith Olbermann is back, and for his many fans, including the 300,000 who petitioned MSNBC to reinstate him, it would seem a return to form.
But Olbermann's dispute with the brass at MSNBC may only serve as a prelude to more troubled times.
MSNBC's parent company, NBC Universal, is likely to be taken over by cable giant Comcast, should regulators sign off on the $30 billion deal. If history is any guide, this merger poses an even bigger threat to the future of MSNBC personalities like Olbermann and Rachel Maddow than the recent dustup that temporarily sidelined the host.
That's why tens of thousands have already urged the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Justice to stop the merger. They cite a multitude of reasons the takeover would bring them harm, including higher prices and fewer choices in programming and services. Indeed, such concentration of media power leads to a less vigilant news media, a muted marketplace of ideas and fewer consumer options at a time when are demanding more.
Add to this the dim but real prospect that MSNBC's new boss will be even less welcoming than the current one to commentators that rock the boat. Just consider the candidates in line to take over MSNBC:
Steve Burke, Comcast's Chief Operating Officer
According to The Street, Steve Burke will take NBC's CEO spot from Jeff Zucker should the merger be approved. In an e-mail to colleagues, Zucker said: "Comcast will be a great new steward, just as GE has been, and they deserve the chance to implement their own vision."
That vision - in the hands of Burke - might not be to the liking of MSNBC's stable of talent. Burke has deep ties to the Republican Party. According to Public Citizen, Burke raised at least $200,000 for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. Prior to that, he served on the President's Council of Advisers on Science and Technology under Bush, at a time when the administration was undermining scientific consensus on topics including climate change, stem-cell research, and even the relationship between corn syrup and rates of diabetes in children.
As a top science adviser to President Bush, did Burke condone administration efforts to bury scientific findings that challenged official policy? What would he do when comments or reporting by Olbermann or Maddow challenge Comcast's corporate dogma?
Peter A. Chernin, Former Second in Command at News Corp.
Peter Chernin was a major fundraiser for Sen. Hillary Clinton, according to the New York Times, which also reports that he may be on the short list to take over NBC operations should Comcast get the nod.
For years, Chernin has co-owned a restaurant on Martha's Vinyard with Comcast Chief Executive Brian Roberts. More recently, he was tapped by Roberts to become a "special adviser" to Comcast on the potential merger.
Chernin's close ties to Clinton, Roberts and Rupert Murdoch indicate his biases may be more corporate than political. But it was during his tenure at Fox that the network looked the other way as many of its personalities actively -- and financially -- supported Republican candidates and Tea Party causes.
Chernin once asked Roberts whether he planned to interfere in editorial content at MSNBC -- a question that Roberts refused to answer.
Eileen Dolente, Senior Director, Comcast Multimedia Content Development
Odds are slim that Eileen Dolente would be picked to head MSNBC programming. But her record at Comcast offers a disturbing glimpse into the cable company's mindset regarding speech that interferes with business as usual.
As director of programming for Comcast's news division, CN8, Dolente fired host Barry Nolan. His crime? Nolan had protested a major award being given to Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly.
Nolan was "appalled" that an award would be given to O'Reilly. He dashed off e-mails stating that O'Reilly's "indiscretions, inaccuracies, and prejudices disqualify him for such a lofty honor."
Dolente was appalled that one of her hosts would share such an opinion, and within a week of the award ceremony, she showed Nolan the door. Documents filed in a subsequent lawsuit revealed that the mutual business interests of Comcast and News Corp., which employs O'Reilly, were a major factor in Nolan's firing.
What position would Comcast take should MSNBC personalities launch a similar attack on a valued business partner? If Dolente takes the helm, past may become prologue for MSNBC.
From time to time the editors at the Washington Post push out an opinion that doesn’t quite pass its own smell test.
As a business, the Washington Post Company owns properties that extend well beyond the newspaper itself. As a prominent newspaper, the Post claims to have built a firewall that protects its editors and their decision making from the interests of this larger entity.
But on occasion these interests ram up against the public’s right to know – and the editors' stated obligation to serve that right. And the results aren’t pretty.
September 28, 2009:
In print: The Washington Post editorial board complains that the FCC's push for Net Neutrality protections is "heavy handed" and “unneeded.”
The back story: The Washington Post Company owns Cable One, a cable and Internet firm active in 19 states which stands to benefit financially by breaking Net Neutrality and discriminating in favor of some online content and against other. The Post editorial fails to mention this conflict of interest.
The Post ombudsman: No comment.
August 22, 2010:
In print: The Washington Post editorial board opposes new rules on for-profit universities proposed by the Department of Education, writing that these rules "make no sense."
The back story: The Washington Post Company owns Kaplan Inc., Kaplan University and other for-profit schools of higher education that would benefit financially from fewer regulations of their “industry.”
The Post ombudsman: No comment.
October 25, 2010:
In print: The Washington Post editorial board writes that the merger of Comcast and NBC “should be allowed to proceed” and that regulators should “be skeptical of the critics' claims” that the deal represents higher prices, fewer choices and less access for consumers.
The back story: The Washington Post Company not only owns Cable One, but also six television stations, a long list of print publications, plus Slate.com, Foreign Policy and other online sites. The proposed Comcast-NBC merger could serve as a model for the Post Company’s future growth as a conglomerated media interest. While the editorial discloses the company’s ownership of Cable One, it failed to disclose how greatly its aggregated interests influence the Post’s position on this issue.
The high-pitched pundits of Fox News Channel have had their sites aimed at NPR nonstop since the radio network sacked analyst Juan Williams last week for likening all Muslims to terrorists.
They've not only tried to turn Williams into some kind of media martyr (though it's hard to feel too sorry for a guy who was unemployed for about 20 minutes before signing a $2 million deal with Fox) but have gone so far as to stalk NPR President Vivian Schiller on the streets of D.C.
The Williams' hullabaloo has dominated the headlines, but Fox News and its Republican allies are hunting much larger game: Big Bird.
Sarah Palin, Bill O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove and Megyn Kelly, among others, have taken to the air calling on Congress to wholly defund public broadcasting. They don't just want to silence NPR, but to pull the plug on every network, station and program that gets public support -- from PBS to Pacifica. They want to freeze out Frontline and foreclose on Sesame Street.
On The Factor, O'Reilly called for "immediate suspension of every taxpayer dollar" going to public media. "We're going to get legislation," he said. "We're going to freeze it down, so they don't get any more money."
On cue, Sen. Jim DeMint (R -S.C.) promised to introduce legislation that would do just that: zero out $420 million from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which supports stations that offer important public affairs programs such as The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and All Things Considered. Eliminating funds would kill the successful "Ready to Learn" program, which supports children's shows, including Sesame Street, Arthur and Dragon Tales.
"There's ... no reason to force taxpayers to subsidize liberal programming they disagree with," DeMint said late last week.
What We Get from Public Media
The right's gamble here is that their efforts to paint public broadcasting as the voice of encroaching socialism will fire up the passions of some Americans, a week before many of us head to the polls.
"NPR is a public institution that directly or indirectly exists because the taxpayers fund it. And what do we, the taxpayers, get for this?" asked Sarah Palin.
Well, according to poll after poll, the taxpayers believe that they get a lot -- not just the educational programming that brings us Big Bird, but also hard-hitting journalism that the much of the commercial media have abandoned.
According to the nonpartisan Roper polling firm, Americans rank PBS as the second "most valuable" service taxpayers receive for their money, outranked only by national defense. Moreover, a majority of the public believe the amount of federal funding public broadcasting receives is "too little."
Comparatively, this is true. The United States already has one of the lowest levels of federal funding of public media in the developed world -- at just $1.43 per capita; Canada spends $22 per capita; England spends $80; people in Finland and Denmark spend much more. And it's no coincidence that the nations with highest public media funding seem to do a far better job producing journalism that challenges government and corporations and upsets the status quo.
And maybe that's what scares Palin's crew the most. Perhaps their goal in all of this, as has been suggested elsewhere, is not to slash funding for public broadcasting but to scare public broadcasters into presenting news with a slant more favorable to the right.
Why Bashing Big Bird Will Backfire
Whatever the rationale, their tactics are a proven loser.
Every time PBS and NPR have come under attack, the American public has risen up in protest to defend -- not defund -- it. A similar right-wing push in 2005 failed after more than a million people contacted Congress demanding that full funding be restored. Attacking public media also ended up hurting Nixon in the 1970s, Reagan in the 1980s, and Newt Gingrich in the 1990s.
In just a few days, hundreds of thousands of people already have mobilized in defense of Big Bird and better journalism. You can add your voice here.
Here's hoping this time we don't just stop yet another assault on public media, but actually start solving the structural problems with the system that has left it underfunded and overexposed to these types of political shenanigans.
It's put up or shut up time on Net Neutrality. That’s what Rob Pegoraro wrote in the Washington Post earlier this week.
And he’s right.
The fate of the open Internet now rests in the hands of FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski. The chairman just needs to muster the courage to do right by the millions of Internet users who demand an Internet of, for, and by the people.
Rep. Henry Waxman tried last week to craft a bipartisan compromise on Net Neutrality only to have his bill deep-sixed by hostile Republicans on the Commerce Committee, who are eager to smother the open Internet should voters hand them a majority in November.
Waxman passed the issue back to Genachowski with clear instructions to “move forward” and reassert the agency’s authority to protect consumers against content blocking efforts by the likes of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.
FCC No Brainer
Genachowski now simply needs to buck up. His next step would seem a no brainer to anyone viewing the issue from beyond the Beltway: reclassify broadband under Title II so the FCC can protect Internet users against corporate censors.
Sadly, the view from the eighth floor of the FCC – which has been circled by industry lobbyists for months – is not so apparent.
Pegoraro wrote:
The issue here is simple: Should the government prevent Internet providers from discriminating for or against legitimate sites, services and applications?
That's not a theoretical risk. Telecommunications firms and some networking experts have argued for the right to charge other sites more for faster delivery of their data or put the brakes on some online uses that they feel clog their networks.
The FCC can save us from a future where corporations privilege certain content over others by following Genachowski’s original plan unveiled in 2009 and “write a simple set of net-neutrality rules,” concludes Pegoraro.
“An agency chair has to make tough decisions which, more often than not, contradict the desires of the largest companies with stakes in the outcomes, Free Press President Josh Silver told NPR last night. “Julius Genachowski is terrified of making those decisions.“
We’ve Got Your Back, Julius
Delivering on Net Neutrality isn’t that frightening. Genachowski just needs to call a Commission vote to restore the FCC as a watchdog of our online rights. He has the legal clearance, political cover and momentum to make this vote happen. He just needs to be reminded of that:
1. Congressional leadership: House Commerce Committee Chairman Waxman told Genachowski to "move forward under Title II." Support for FCC action has also been voiced by leading Democrats on the Commerce Committee, including Reps. Anna Eshoo, Ed Markey and Jay Inslee. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has given Genachowski the nod, calling Net Neutrality, reclassification and universal access “priorities for us”;
2. Opinion leaders in media: Pegoraro’s Washington Post column was just one among the clamor of voices in media calling for action. The editorial boards of major daily newspapers, including the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Seattle Times, the San Jose Mercury News and USA Today, have called for FCC action;
3. Genachowski is the swing vote for a majority of FCC Commissioners in favor of Title II and Net Neutrality. Both Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Michael Copps have indicated that they favor this move. To get it done, Genachowski simply needs to call the vote;
4. President Obama has publicly urged Net Neutrality protections on at least seven occasions. He appointed Genachowski with the understanding that this would be job one at the FCC;
5. In 2009, the FCC's commissioned a Harvard study, which concluded that Bush-era deregulation created a latticework of local broadband monopolies and stuck Americans paying more for some of the slowest Internet speeds in the developed world. The study concluded that reclassification would restore our global Internet leadership;
6. And, most importantly, more than two million Americans have demanded that Washington protect the open Internet from blocking and discrimination by corporations.
The chairman can put a clear Net Neutrality standard on the books by calling a commission vote and reclassifying.
The move has the added benefit of giving clearance for the agency to proceed on plans to bridge the nation’s digital divide and invite more consumer choice into a broadband marketplace dominated by too few players.
All of our efforts to make this happen have come to this moment, right now, and to this chairman, Julius Genachowski. He simply needs to step up.
AT&T can’t seem to get its story straight on Net Neutrality. For years, company spokespeople had claimed that the issue was a "solution in search of a problem."
Over the last week, they’ve unwittingly defined the problem and it is … AT&T.
As recently as 2008, Jim Cicconi, AT&T’s top lobbyist, painted threats to an open Internet as a non-issue, and certainly not something requiring intervention by the Federal Communications Commission.
"I think people agree why the Internet is successful," Cicconi said at the time, adding that threats to openness were largely imaginary. "I don't think government can anticipate these kinds of technical problems. Right now, I think Net Neutrality is a solution in search of a problem."
Fast forward to September 2010, and Cicconi has become a poster child for the problems he once denied.
Getting 'Prioritization' Wrong
Last week one of his deputies, Robert Quinn, filed a letter with the FCC claiming that the company’s plans for implementing "paid prioritization"– or privileging delivery of certain Internet content for a price – would not undermine an open Internet.
AT&T even went so far as to attack Free Press for, in their words, being dogmatic in disputing this claim. By way of evidence, AT&T wrote the FCC that prioritization is in keeping with the Internet’s fundamental openness – supported by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the international body that develops and promotes Internet standards.
But soon after AT&T made this claim, the IETF's chairman disputed it. "This characterization of the IETF standard and the use of the term 'paid prioritization' by AT&T is misleading," IETF Chairman Russ Housley told the National Journal.
From past statements, it seems that even AT&T disagrees with itself.
Way back in 2009, Cicconi said that Internet “discrimination that impacts consumers negatively is something unreasonable." He later complained:
[Net Neutrality] is an important reality check for government: You’re pushed to achieve a Utopian end people have dreamed up, but that’s not how government works. Government works to solve problems … and nobody has made a convincing case that there is a problem here that needs the government to step in.
So what’s really happening here?
AT&T wants to slow down most Internet traffic so it can charge a few deep-pocketed companies for priority access. That is certainly something the IETF never envisioned and does not endorse, because it goes against the openness that has been central to the Internet’s success.
AT&T calls this scheme paid prioritization. But their misleading definition of it is just another way to wiggle out of the non-discrimination principles that have powered the Internet for decades.
Think about it. Cicconi has long claimed that Net Neutrality threats don’t exist and therefore don't require government intervention. Now AT&T seeks to demolish Net Neutrality, but it has to downplay paid prioritization to square the circle.
In other words, instead of calling Net Neutrality “a solution in search of a problem,” now they’re saying: “Problem? What problem?”
Doing the Right Thing
This campaign of disinformation shows that network operators will say anything to get what they want – even if it includes misleading regulators about crucial Internet policy.
On Wednesday, Free Press joined with several other public interest groups to demand that AT&T lobbyists retract inaccurate statements made to the FCC about paid prioritization.
History should be AT&T’s guide.
For two years, the company operated under Net Neutrality rules as a condition of its merger with Bell South. Under that agreement, AT&T said that it would not "provide or sell to Internet content, application, or service providers ... any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet ... based on its source, ownership or destination."
Under these conditions, the company increased investment in new networks and grossed profits in the tens of billions of dollars – without prioritization.
So, Net Neutrality has never been a problem for AT&T. But AT&T is now a problem for Net Neutrality.
And that's precisely why the FCC needs to intervene.
News last week that Google and Verizon's had reached consensus on a "legislative framework" for Net Neutrality was met with near universal disdain. Not only was the deal slammed by those inside and outside of Washington, it cratered from Wall Street to Silicon Valley.
The criticism didn't end with the Google-Verizon announcement. It extended to the F.C.C. and its indecisive chairman, Julius Genachowski, who seems content to take a back seat to industry as companies like AT&T, Verizon and Google carve up the Internet for themselves.
Here's a survey of prominent editorials that were written to prod Genachowski to get back in the front seat (alongside President Obama), salvage his reputation and champion public policy that protects the Internet's democratic nature against corporate overlords:
“This "Title II reclassification" ... doesn't require a permission slip from Congress. A simple majority vote of the FCC's five commissioners will do, and three of them have publicly argued for net-neutrality rules. ”
“The F.C.C. has been searching for a way to ensure an open Internet since April ... In May, the commission proposed to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, the right definition for this era. This process must be allowed to proceed.”
"But at the moment, the choice appears to be between having major industries self-regulate their Internet behavior, and having the FCC regulate it. Given that the Google-Verizon proposal seems helpful primarily to Google and Verizon at the expense of an open, innovation-friendly Internet, it’s time for the FCC to step in.”
"Although the Verizon-Google proposal looks all but dead for now, it's the latest example of how the Internet is under assault by those who would erect tollbooths on what is now a freeway. It is also clear evidence of how the FCC needs to set up clear rules to prevent Internet service providers and device makers from controlling what content people can access."
"The FCC has the power to change the situation, and this deal provides a catalyst. It can swiftly assert its authority to ensure open, nondiscriminatory high-speed Internet access for Americans for both wireless and wired services. We urge the commission to deliver on the president's promise. Don't let these giant galoots shaking hands in the corner distract you -- you have a job to do."
"Google's mission is doing evil by consolidating its already too-large share of the digital advertising market and picking up the scraps left behind by Verizon and other Internet service providers.It is time the FCC not worry about the interests of huge corporations and focus on good public policy instead. Kill the Google-Verizon scheme before it gains traction."
"...the Google-Verizon pact isn't even close. They need to go back to the drawing board and get support from consumer groups and Internet users instead of just broadband carriers and web giants. The FCC also needs to step in immediately, by reclassifying broadband under a section of the telecommunications code that's subject to more scrutiny - and therefore less ability to discriminate."
"Genachowski now faces a choice, and his legacy as chair rests on his decision," says Karr. "Will he be true to Internet users and restore the agency's power to protect an open and accessible Internet? Or will he buckle to pressure from the phone and cable companies and look the other way as they undermine the Internet's democratic nature?"
"The FCC must assert its regulatory prerogatives over broadband and seek clarifying authority where the rules need to be sorted out. The FCC is not an agent of the industries it oversees. President Obama and Chairman Genochowski need to remember whom they work for. The customers will not forget."
"This affects us all, and we all need to join together to stop it. We need everyone involved if we're going to stand up to corporations the size of Verizon and Google. This is the FCC's job right now, and their lack of strong enforcement is unacceptable. The free-flow of ideas and innovation online is in danger."
"...the vacuum we now have in regulating high-speed Internet access has led these companies to divide things up among themselves. The FCC is being disintermediated, in effect. The Commission needs to act quickly to protect entrepreneurs, innovation, and consumers."
"Given the possibility that Republicans could retake the House, it looks unlikely that Congress will take any action in support of neutrality for the next few years.Over at the FCC, Genachowski has been slow to act, and has said little on the Google/Verizon proposal. But net neutrality rules are now quite clearly up to him."
So, will the media deluge penetrate the eighth floor offices of the F.C.C chair? Will Genachowski proceed with his earlier pledge to restore the agency's authority, promote universal access and protect Net Neutrality? Or will he buckle to pressure from the phone and cable companies?
Either way, he is the swing vote for a majority of the commissioners. So the fate of the Internet -- as the most open and democratic media in history or as a closed network controlled by the few -- is now Genachowski's to determine.
In 2009, President Obama nominated Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission with the understanding that he would make protecting Net Neutrality and promoting universal broadband access his top priorities.
But the chairman has failed to live up to expectations. His chief of staff is now brokering a deal with corporations that could take control of the Internet out of the hands of the people who use it and put it into the hands of powerful companies like AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Google.
Does Genachowski really think that his job is pleasing powerful corporations — and not serving the public? Does he really want to let Google and Verizon break the open Internet so they can rebuild it as a gated community that only serves their bottom line?
The chairman’s actions (or lack of them) need to be held to a full public accounting. It’s time he explained why he seems to be caving to corporate special interest, betraying President Obama’s wishes, and ignoring the people he was put in office to serve:
Here are three things you can do:
Retweet this act.ly petition to get Genachowski to commit to to demand that Genachowski accounts for his inaction.
On the one side, elected officials and regulators have heard from millions of citizens demanding that Washington protect this rule that preserves the Internet’s open architecture.
On the other is a lobbying juggernaut that seeks to dismantle online openness so that phone and cable companies can rebuild the Internet as a gated community that serves their bottom line.
The problem is that policymakers in the middle aren’t holding the line for the public. They seem content simply to cut a deal between companies with the most political and economic clout.
If that doesn’t worry you, it should.
Because the deal they’re cutting is over who ultimately wins control of online information. And it goes without saying that you’re not in the running.
Google, Verizon, AT&T and others are reportedly nearing consensus on an agreement that could radically redesign the Web, allowing the carriers to build priority access lanes that admit only large companies that can pay the toll.
Where will that leave the rest of us? Stranded on the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road, with slower service, fewer choices and limited access.
Here’s the kicker. The FCC, the one agency tasked with protecting your interests online, may be poised to sign off on this plan. The agency is reportedly convening closed-door meetings with these companies to strike a deal that would let Internet providers implement a “paid prioritization” scheme.
According to the Washington Post, the FCC’s chief of staff wanted to "seize an opportunity" to agree on ways that carriers could “manage traffic” on their networks.
If recent articles by Amazon and AT&T execs are any indication, paid prioritization would allow carriers to ransom access to their customers to the highest bidder. AT&T’s top lobbyist, James Cicconi, wrote that such extortion was "not only necessary but in the best interest of consumers."
Don’t believe it.
The beauty of the open Internet is that anyone with an idea has a chance to take on giant corporations without first having to bribe network owners for access. Net Neutrality is the rule that guarantees this openness.
It’s because of Net Neutrality that great ideas like YouTube (which began in an office above a pizzeria in San Mateo) and Twitter (which grew out of a day-long brainstorming session among podcasters) blossomed to revolutionize how we connect and communicate with one another.
The paid prioritization deal under consideration wouldn’t allow for the next YouTube. And the next Twitter would likely never make it off the drawing board.
This scheme would let companies like Comcast and AT&T favor their own video services, voice applications and social media. It would let Verizon build a wide moat around its Internet fiefdom, insulating itself from competition by upstart innovators that want to show consumers how things can be done better and more cheaply.
Columbia Law Professor (and Free Press board chairman) Tim Wu has said that letting carriers choose favorites is “just too close to the Tony Soprano vision of networking: Use your position to make threats and extract payments. This is similar to the outlawed, but still common, ‘payola’ schemes in the radio world.”
"If allowing network discrimination means being stuck with AT&T's long-term vision of the Internet,” Wu concludes, “it won't be worth it."
That the FCC would consider such a deal marks a reversal on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s earlier pledge to safeguard the open Internet.
As recently as May, Genachowski proposed to reclassify broadband access under “Title II” of the Communications Act. This move would reverse dangerous Bush-era deregulations and give the agency the authority to protect Internet users from abuse by carriers.
In a letter to the FCC, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) Supported Genachowski’s plan to reclassify. Inslee gathered support for this move from more than 30 other members of Congress who told the FCC that reclassification is the way.
Rather than abandon it to cut secret deals with corporations, the Commission should use its power to protect Internet users and preserve the free flow of communications online.
Beyonce, Mariah Carey and Usher pocketed millions in blood money from the Qaddafi family to perform at lavishly corrupt private parties on the Caribbean island of St. Barts.
In 2009, President Obama nominated Julius Genachowski to chair the Federal Communications Commission with the understanding that he would make protecting Net Neutrality and promoting universal broadband access his top priorities.
