Gore: Neutrality the Key to Internet Democracy

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

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

Fighting on Our Side for a Neutral Web

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's Wrong in Illinois

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

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

Durbin: Against Big Media Until He Was For It

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

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

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

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

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

So what caused the sudden change of heart?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. YouTube Goes to Washington

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

>> Watch our video blog featuring Hurley and others

Mr. YouTube Goes To Washington: Watch the Video

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

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

Neutrality Sparks Innovation

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

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

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

Making the Next YouTube Possible

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Consumer' Group Fails Smell Test

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally published at Huffington Post

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

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

Whitacre Version 2.0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moyers' Three Factors in the Media's Iraq Failure

Originally published at Huffington Post

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

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

Moyers makes his case:

1. The Failure of Objectivity

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

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

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

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

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

2. Blind Partisanship

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

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

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

3. Big Media Elitism

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

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

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

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

Solution: Transform Democracy by Reforming Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Real Grassroots Look Like

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

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

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

Rep. Phil Hare (D-Illinois)

Rep. Hare Gets Behind Markey's Bill

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

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)

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

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

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

SavetheInternet.com with Rep. Wilson: A Strong Supporter

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

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

Rep. John Yarmuth (D-Kentucky)

Rep. Yarmuth: Voting in the public interest

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

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

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

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)

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

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

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)

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

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

Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana)

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

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.)

Rep. Courtney Pledges Support for Net Neutrality

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

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

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.)

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

Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.)

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

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

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

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

Rep. David Davis (R-Tenn.)

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

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

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

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

Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-Kansas)

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

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

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

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

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

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

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

Sen. Claire McCaskill's (D-Missouri)

SavetheInternet.com at Sen McCaskill's office

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

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)

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

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.)

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

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

Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.)

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

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)

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

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.)

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

Miller continues:

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

Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

Rep. Murphy: Fighting corporate abuse

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

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

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

Page continues:

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

Rep. Steve Kagen (D-Wis.)

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

Rep. Pallone Hears from His Constituents

Other Recent Meetings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Gonzales With Neutrality Supporters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Hands Off" Approach: America Slips Further Behind

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

A Country Without a Plan

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

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

The Telco Swindle

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

But these privileges extend little further than their bank accounts.

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

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

The 'Hands Off' Approach = Billions in Losses

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

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

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

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

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

Getting Back on Track

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

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

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

Imus Gone But Big Media Remain

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

After Imus: What You Can Do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to McChesney:

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

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

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

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

>> Tell Your Friends to Join in This Action

Groups Co-Opted To Spread Telco Propaganda

And you thought telco Astroturfing had gotten bad enough.

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

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

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

But there’s more to it than that.

Follow the Money

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

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

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

Coin-Operated Analysis

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

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

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

Selling Out The Public

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

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

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

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

Astroturf Buzz Kill: Google Still Supports Net Neutrality

Published at Huffington Post

The blogosphere has been abuzz over a report that alleges Google is backing off its full commitment to Net Neutrality legislation. A recent story at GigaOm points to a quote from a Google exec that suggests the company is taking a different position.

This in turn fired up the AT&T shills and Astroturf groups who stumbled over themselves to declare disarray among Net Neutrality supporters.

But once again, these paid apologists got it wrong. Surprised by what appeared to be a Google about face, we actually called the company to ask them where they stand. (You would hope that any good reporter would have done the same.)

"Google's position on Net Neutrality has not changed one bit," Google spokesman Adam Kovacevich told us. We asked him to put it in writing. He emailed us this:

"We strongly believe that Congress must take action to ensure a free and open Internet, in the face of a highly concentrated broadband market. Furthermore, Google's position -- which we testified to last year in Congress -- is that broadband network operators should not be permitted to charge any content owner extra fees or extra tolls. We continue to support net neutrality legislation by Senators Dorgan and Snowe, and by Representative Markey, and we remain steadfast members of the coalition supporting net neutrality."

Schmidt: With the Public on Net Neutrality

Adam echoes Google CEO Eric Schmidt, who just last week told Bloomberg TV's Judy Woodruff :

"We believe that it is a violation of a fundamental assumption of the Internet, that every piece of the Internet is reachable. It's called the end-to-end principle. And we believe that Net Neutrality, if it is given up, that new competitors, new entrants, new ideas, become much more difficult. So far we have been able to hold back the forces. It looks like we'll have a good year."

Good for Google. But it's important to remember that this debate is not just between one corporate Titan and another. It’s a battle that pits the special interests of the few (phone and cable companies) against a vast grassroots effort involving more than a million Americans from every corner of society.

As much as they try, the phone companies and their paid apologists can't ignore the vast grassroots campaign that has lifted Net Neutrality from obscurity and thrown a wrench in their plan to seize control of the Internet.

This debate is about ensuring that the Internet remains a engine for free speech, economic innovation and new ideas. We remain pleased Google sees it our way.

Activists Continue Drumbeat for Net Neutrality

Supporters Convene 20 Congressional Meetings in 20 Days

SavetheInternet.com is showing members of Congress what a real grassroots coalition looks like, drumming up more support for Net Neutrality during 20 "in-district" meetings with congressional offices.

In the meetings -- held over the past 20 days in offices from Shoreline, Wash., to Palm Harbor, Fla., from Providence, R.I., to Bakersfield, Calif. -- hundreds of activists urged their elected representatives and senators to support Net Neutrality in the 110th Congress.

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

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

SavetheInternet.com with Rep. Wilson: A Strong Supporter

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

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

Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.)

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

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

Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.)

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

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

Rep. Joe Courtney (D-Conn.)

Rep. Courtney Pledges Support for Net Neutrality

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

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

Rep. Nathan Deal (R-Ga.)

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

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

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

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

Rep. David Davis (R-Tenn.)

"He was not previously aware of the Net Neutrality issue," said Ramona Taylor, a small business owner from Johnson City, Tenn., after her meeting with Rep. David Davis (R-Tenn.).

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

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

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

Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

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

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

Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.)

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

Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.)

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

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

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.)

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

Miller continues:

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

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

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

Page continues:

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

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.)

"Because of Maria [Cantwell's] background in high-tech, she has a particular interest in Net Neutrality," reported Bill Purdy of Bainbridge Island. "She will be a cheerleader."

Purdy and other SavetheInternet.com supporters met with Cantwell's outreach director, Shakti Hawkins. "She is strongly for the Dorgan bill," Purdy says. "The politicians who oppose this should be made to understand that Net Neutrality is pro-business, pro-entrepreneur, pro-free market."

Rep. Pallone Hears from His Constituents

Other Recent Meetings:

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

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

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

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

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

Rep. Mary Fallin (R-Okla.) on March 2

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

If you want to organize a meeting with your representative, please contact Ira Horowitz at ihorowitz@freepress.net

Web Inventor: Net Neutrality A Priority for Congress

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web told U.S. House members Thursday that protecting Net Neutrality should be one of their top priorities.

Testifying today before the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, Sir Tim called upon Congress to ensure that the explosion of innovations happening on the Web not be slowed by limits imposed by Internet gatekeepers.

Listen to Sir Tim's Testimony

His prescription for the Web's continued success includes the preservation of Net Neutrality and the thwarting of new royalty systems that would "constrain what people can read or publish online."

Net Neutrality an 'Obvious Requirement'

Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon) asked Berners-Lee to prioritize the one or two policy priorities that Congress should solve in the short term.

"I hope that the Net Neutrality thing is a short-term thing," Sir Tim replied. "In most of the world people regard Net Neutrality as such an obvious requirement that I hope [the solution] will be short term."

"The Web took off in all its glory because it was a royalty-free infrastructure," Sir Tim said, reiterating his earlier warnings against threats by phone and cable companies to impose new tolls on Web traffic.

Freeing Up the Connection

"Non-discriminatory Internet provision is very important for a society based on the World Wide Web. I think that is very important," Sir Tim said in response to Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-California), who asked for an explanation of how an absence of non-discrimination rules would impact the development of the Web.

"The communication medium is so important to society we have to give it a special treatment … I will always be in favor of erring on the side of keeping the medium to be the blank sheet -- of allowing me, if I connect to the Internet, to connect to everyone else."

In June 2006, Sir Lee said that he was concerned about threats by phone and cable companies to constrain access to Web sites that don't pay their extortionate fees:

"When I invented the Web, I didn't have to ask anyone's permission," he said. "Now, hundreds of millions of people are using it freely. I am worried that that is going end in the USA."

During his testimony today Sir Lee, who is now based in the US as a senior researcher at MIT, expanded upon these concerns from the perspective of a Web-based business:

"If we had a situation in which the U.S. had serious flaws in its Net Neutrality ... and [a country in] Europe did have Net Neutrality and I were trying to start a company, then I would be very tempted to move."

The Human Web

Subcommittee chair Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked Sir Lee to elaborate on his concerns about royalty-free proposals for the Web and how such royalties might have affected his work had they been a part of his original design for the Web.

Lee replied:

"Chairman Markey let me assure you that if I had charged from the word go, per click, the World Wide Web would not have taken off at all. We would not be here talking about it.

"Had there been a fee there would have been no investment. The investment people made in the Web was made by volunteers in their garages late at night. … I myself was allowed by my boss to do it in spare time. People did it in their ten percent time. And if there had been any pay-per-click, if there had been any form of fee, they would not have gone anywhere near it."

>> Read Subcommittee Vice Chair Mike Doyle's opening remarks

>> My Original Post at Savetheinternet.com

Opposing Net Neutrality a Political Third Rail, Washington Post

Opposing Net Neutrality has become a political third rail for candidates who seek elected office, according to a story today in the Washington Post.

Post writer Charles Babington praised SavetheInternet.com Coalition efforts to mobilize the netroots and other Internet activists around this issue.

The Christian Coalition's Michele Combs delivers one million petitions to Congress -- with MoveOn's Joan Blades and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)

Net Neutrality "was hardly a household term" before the spring of 2006, Babington writes. Yet, now, every major Democratic presidential candidate has endorsed it as have much of the new leadership in Congress.

Many on the other side of the aisle are coming around to the issue as well. A veteran political campaign consultant told Babington, "if you're not for net neutrality, then the blogs will kick your [ass]."

That this issue has grown to such prominence is a testament to our efforts, writes Babington:

“Last spring, the debate over net neutrality barely scratched the consciousness of Congress, let alone the general public, after a House subcommittee defeated an effort to add net-neutrality restrictions to a multi-faceted telecommunications bill. The 23 to 8 vote goaded more than 850 interest groups, many, but not all, politically left of center, to form a coalition called SavetheInternet.com.”

Our coalition includes groups from across the political spectrum. Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition of America told the Post that Net Neutrality is a nonpartisan issue and that "the conservative side has not been educated on the issue."

Still, the Christian Coalition along with the Gun Owners of America have successfully rallied support from their membership calling Net Neutrality an issue for conservatives, libertarians, and other champions of free speech and the free market.

"As long as Congress is making the rules for a handful of major companies in providing the infrastructure, it has to make certain those companies give equal access to all comers," wrote Gun Owners Internet director Craig Fields. "That's the way it has been for the very lifetime of the free and open Internet we're all interested in maintaining."

MoveOn.org’s Adam Green added that Net Neutrality should transcend political lines. "An issue like Net Neutrality, which directly taps into Internet issues. . . could have a special energy in the political season," he said. "Every Republican and Democrat who uses the Internet is threatened by corporations that want to control which Web sites people can access."

Forward-Looking Policy Will Remedy Our Broadband Woes

This week's issue of InformationWeek concludes that forward-looking policy and not wholesale deregulation is the way to save America from becoming a broadband backwater.

The report’s author Richard Hoffman writes that nation’s that are able to craft “genuinely forward-looking telecommunications policies that promote universal access as well as enhancing competition, and which can balance short-term market forces against long-term national priorities, will reap the current and future benefits of increased economic productivity.”

The FCC's Rose Tinted Lens

Read InformationWeek's Report

Hoffman takes the FCC to task for rose-tinted reporting on broadband competition. He calls "questionable" figures presented by FCC Chairman Kevin Martin that define a "high-speed" line as one delivering service of at least 200 Kbps in at least one direction, and for defining a ZIP code as "covered" by broadband access when only one broadband line is active in that region.

His critique of FCC data echoes widespread concern (read Isenberg ,Techdirt, Feld, Free Press, CPI, et al) that the FCC's Martin is skewing already discredited data to paint a picture of a flourishing broadband marketplace. The evidence on the ground – in both urban and rural communities across America – suggests a markedly different reality.

Hoffman writes that the U.S. broadband market is hobbled by "surprisingly little competition." Despite the growing number of broadband users here prices are still much higher than in many of the countries that lead the world in broadband use.

He adds:

"Part of the cause for this pricing disparity can be attributed to the fact that competition brings lower prices and greater innovation, and the U.S. broadband market is, in many ways, not highly competitive."

Back of the Pack

As a result, U.S. broadband accessibility, speed and costs have fallen behind other developed country's including Japan, Canada, Iceland, France, Korea and the U.K.

"The U.S. isn't even close to being the leader in widespread broadband availability and usage," Hoffman writes. "In fact, [we] may be dropping further behind the 'first tier' of broadband-rich countries in Northern Europe and Asia."

He cites Korea as a "best example" of a country's rapid development of superior broadband service. The reason, according to Hoffman, is that Korea "has a tradition of constructive and proactive government policy and involvement in building industry and technological capability to be competitive in the international market."

The Telcos' 'Hand On' Policy Approach

Phone companies only seek to maximize profits and spend millions of dollars on lobbyists to create laws that stifle competition, limit access to rural areas and urban poor with no incentives to increase speed and lower costs. According to Hoffman, "this state of affairs stands in marked contrast to the situation in those nations that are truly broadband leaders."

He concludes:

"[America's] intensely 'hands-off' market-driven system in recent years seems to have resulted in a chaotic and inefficient marketplace, and one that doesn't represent the true state of the United States as a technology leader. Laissez-faire isn't a viable stance if the goal is to compete most effectively against other industrialized nations."

InformationWeek's recommendations fall in line with SavetheInternet.com's agenda for Internet Freedom. They also follow the research and recommendations made by SavetheInternet.com charter members Free Press, Consumers Union and Consumer Federation of America.

Our goal is to create universal and neutral access to a world-class broadband network at affordable prices. To get there we need a national broadband policy, not a series of laws designed to prop up the business models of incumbent telephone and cable companies. We want to make the information superhighway a public good, to bring the transformative spirit of free speech and free markets to every community.

The "Internet Freedom Declaration" is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, InformationWeek's 440,000 readers will join us in this fight for better broadband.

Sock Puppet Redux

Cleland: For Net Neutrality Until He Was Against It

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition receives no support from Google, Amazon, eBay, Microsoft or other corporations. Paid industry apologists like Scott Cleland, Mike McCurry and others have leveled this accusation in an attempt to discredit the Coalition's genuine grassroots efforts and score points with their bosses. (Recommended reading)

These accusations come from individuals who are on the phone and cable company payroll with the explicit intention to undermine the concept of Net Neutrality and smear its supporters.

It's unfortunate that a payola pundit like Cleland routinely fails to come clean and disclose his considerable conflicts of interest -- or to adequately explain why statements he made while on the telco dole directly contradict statements he made prior to receiving money from AT&T.

>> Here's a prominent example of Cleland's shilling without disclosure.

This comes from a man who repeatedly claims to seek an "open debate" on Net Neutrality while selectively ignoring the mounting evidence in support of an open Internet.

Using a variety of methods, the phone and cable lobby will continue to paint issues like Net Neutrality as “unnecessary government regulations” and anti-consumer (turning a blind eye to the fact that all the major U.S. consumer advocacy groups are a part of this Coalition).

They also dismiss the groundswell of public support for this issue as the handiwork of a few “liberal groups.” (ignoring the many conservative and libertarian groups among our rank).

Now, Cleland, McCurry and crew are citing widely discredited FCC data in a feeble attempt to demonstrate that the broadband marketplace is awash with competitors. This is more industry planted propaganda designed to clear a path for the phone and cable duopoly that accounts for more than 98% of all broadband access in the U.S.

They do this as part of their bid to 1) take further control of the market for high-speed Internet access and 2) increase their multi-billion dollar profit margins by erecting new tollbooths to the content that travels over these pipes.

For a clearer picture of the state of broadband competition in the U.S., I recommend you read Broadband Reality Check, InformationWeek's comprehensive survey or David Isenberg's recent blog post on the matter. You can read some of the industry's sponsored reports on this as well -- but understand that their conclusions were drawn well before they conducted one drop of research.

The public tolerance for this type of "Astroturfing" was tested in 2006. More than 75 percent of respondents to a September CBS/New York Time poll thought that most members of Congress “are more interested in serving special interest groups” than “serving the people they represent.”

The Net Neutrality fight isn’t just between corporate Titans like Google and AT&T. It's a battle that pits the special interests of the few (phone and cable companies) against a vast grassroots effort involving Americans from every corner of society.

Please don't ignore the word-of-mouth campaign that has lifted the crucial issue of Net Neutrality from obscurity and thrown a wrench in the phone and cable giants’ plan to overhaul our telecommunications laws behind closed doors.

The debate over Net Neutrality should be a broad, public conversation about what the future of the Internet will look like. Portraying this issue as corporate infighting, overly partisan or heavy handed regulation appeases the phone companies. But this debate is about so much more.

Showing Some Love to the FCC's Top Man

Valentine's Day is Wednesday, but FCC Chairman Kevin has already received his gift from the public.

Watch the Video

In a sugar-coated bid to woo Martin away from corporate media lobbyists, tens of thousands of people have signed and sent an electronic love letter to the man in charge of regulating the Internet.

>> Click here to watch the video

The Valentine's day video asks the chairman to get out of bed with Big Media and "send some love to the people you're really supposed to be serving."

Last year, Martin was caught in bed with corporate lobbyists (literally, see the photo to the right).

At the end of the year -- as the AT&T buyout of Bell South was being approved, the chairman stated his intention not to enforce the Net Neutrality rules that were a condition of the company's massive merger.

2007 is a pivotal year for the chairman. He will be making several decisions that will have a direct impact on Internet freedoms.

The public Valentine urges the chairman to spurn corporate advances and help prevent big phone companies from destroying Net Neutrality. Help foster "more diverse voices and points of view and a free and open Internet" the video asks. "Get out of bed with them and into bed with us."

>> Click here to sign the card

Read more about the courtship of Kevin in today's Wall Street Journal "Washington Wire."

Bush Calls for Propaganda Surge, Slashes PBS

The latest twist of Bush's budgetary knife lays bare the White House's information priority: Fake news trumps real reporting.

George W. Bush is trying—yet again—to smother NPR, PBS and other public broadcasting while forcing an escalation (sorry, "surge") in funding for propaganda.

The president's proposed fiscal year 2008 budget for "U.S. international broadcasting" calls for an overall increase of 3.8% from the last year's recommendation.

All told the budget calls for $668.2 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the federal agency that supervises all US government non-military propaganda.

Journalism Slash and Burn

At the same time, Bush's budget proposes steep cuts to federal funds for public broadcasting -- by nearly 25%. According to the Association of Public Television Stations, the Bush budget would slash up to $145 million from the $460 million proposed FY 2008 budget for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting.

The amount allocated to the BBG is a 3.8 percent increase from the agency's 2007 budget, with monies specifically "targeted to the war on terror." These tax dollars would flow to government mouthpieces including the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Alhurra, Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting.

According to a BBG release: "The budget also fully funds initiatives … to critical Muslim audiences. These include the expansion of VOA television to Iran to a 12 hour stream, VOA Pashto radio programming to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region, television programs to Afghanistan and Pakistan and Alhurra Europe, the 24/7 service to Arabic speakers in Europe."

Taxpayer money well spent?

Measure the overwhelming public support for funding of public broadcasting against their growing dissatisfaction with the war effort. According to a 2005 Roper poll, 82% of Americans believe that taxpayer funding given to PBS is "money well spent." A recent AP-Ipsos poll counts 62% of Americans who now think that going to war in Iraq was a mistake.

Bush's proposed cuts to public broadcasting will put "Sesame Street" and other ad-free kids' shows under the knife. So too will be the watchdog journalism, critical voices and diverse fare that PBS, NPR and other public media offer. The cuts continue the partisan war on journalism once led by the ex-chair of public broadcasting, Ken Tomlinson. (Remember him?)

It's now up to Congress to set the budget right and restore funding to media that more accurately represents the public's priorities. You can help.