Buried deep in President Barack Obama's American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is a line that should bring a smile to your face -- and a scowl to the faces of phone and cable industry lobbyists.
It says that billions of dollars directed to connect more Americans to broadband must be spent on services that meet "nondiscrimination and network interconnection obligations."
What this really means is the good guys have won one battle in the fight for an open Internet. According to Obama's plan, government must now require that the $4.7 billion in federal grants to build high-speed Internet be spent the right way: on networks that abide by Net Neutrality.
In other words, this money -- your money -- can not be used by powerful companies like AT&T and Comcast to implement plans to "manage," filter or re-route you when you traverse the Web.
They have been angling to do so since it became clear that more people were using the Internet for more than email, ecommerce and search.
No Blank Checks
The good news is that this stimulus money isn't going to be big phone and cable's blank check to do as they please. It comes with strings attached, requiring that all networks built with our money keep control over the Internet in the hands of the people who use it every day -- people like you and me.
AT&T and Verizon can't use our money to invest in content filtering tools like the Deep Packet Inspection software being used by China and Burma to sift through Web traffic. Comcast and Cox Cable can't block file-sharing software or other popular and legal Web applications. None of them can use taxpayer funds to decide what traffic gets priority and what gets shunted to a slower lane.
The only bonus being handed out here is Net Neutrality, a rule that benefits the millions of Americans who rely daily upon the Internet to improve their economic status, better educate their children, connect with friends and family, and participate more fully in our democracy.
A Bid to Undercut Neutrality
But get this: Just as Washington is funneling your tax dollars to build this open Internet, phone and cable company lobbyists are swooping in to rearrange the rules, water down Net Neutrality requirements, and stamp out consumer choice.
They came out into the open during a public meeting Monday in Washington.
"The idea that we should lay additional and unknown regulations on top of the task of the people getting this grant money is, I think, troubling at best," said Jonathan Banks of the U.S. Telecom Association during a meeting at the U.S. Department of Commerce.
James Assey, of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association said that Net Neutrality requirements could create "uncertainty" in the marketplace. Chris Guttman-McCabe, speaking on behalf of the largest wireless carriers, said openness rules take away from the central focus of the stimulus package, which is "creating the most jobs and helping reverse the recession."
The Internet's Bedrock Principle
Such misleading statements are designed to make people think we should hand over control of the Internet to the same companies that pay the salaries of these three lobbyists.
But what Banks, Assey and Guttman-McCabe failed to note is that Net Neutrality rules have always governed their profitable clients, such as when AT&T agreed to run a neutral network as a condition of its merger with BellSouth in 2007; or in 2008 when the FCC decided to disallow Comcast from throttling peer-to-peer protocols such as BitTorrent.
The only "uncertainty" in this marketplace would result from giving mighty network providers new powers to fiddle with our content. To do so would undercut the level playing field that has made the Internet the greatest engine for free speech and commerce in history.
Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott just delivered 15,000 letters to the administration demanding that this basic freedom -- the right to connect to anyone, anywhere -- remains the bedrock principle of any new networks built with federal funds.
The voices of Internet users are clear and unequivocal on this, Scott told the agencies in charge of distributing the Internet stimulus. If you want to use our billions, we need to know that your guaranteeing our online freedom in exchange.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
The Future Begins Thru You
Every now and then comes something that is a perfect expression of what the Internet is about.
The latest, if you haven't already heard, comes via Kutiman, an Israeli Web impresario who mashed and mixed video clips of amateur YouTube musicians to create a near-flawless overture to the Twittering masses.
ThruYOU, his resulting record (if you can call it that), has taken the Web by storm, garnering more than a million YouTube views in the seven days since its release.
That's impressive when you consider its humble beginnings. Kutiman sent an e-mail about the project to just 20 friends. They told their friends about it and ThruYOU took on a life of its own, spreading like a netroots brushfire via Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and blogs.
But the ThruYOU sensation is more than a momentary blip on social media's radar.
After seeing ThruYOU yesterday, Larry Lessig, the author of "Remix," the bible of the free-culture generation, wrote: "Watch this, and you'll understand everything and more than what I try to explain in my book."
Jon Newton of P2P.net added that ThruYOU is "absolutely, 100% guaranteed to inspire artists around the world to produce art which has never been seen before, and never could have been seen without the Internet."
All Bets Are Off
Kutiman, who also goes by the name Ophir Kutiel, has captured the Zeitgeist of the moment - a time when our rapidly evolving Internet culture is toppling old regimes and handing over control of popular information to people like you, me, Kutiman and his YouTube orchestra.
What ThruYOU tells us is that all bets are off. The DNA of our media system has mutated so completely that it's only a matter of time before our society changes as well.
In fact, that change is already happening.
In politics, economics, arts and culture, an era of privileged access is giving way to something that's much more decentralized, participatory and personal.
We no longer passively consume media, we actively participate in it. This often means creating content, in whatever form and from whatever sources -- what author Jonathan Zittrain calls "generativity."
We no longer limit our political involvement to television and the polling booth. We organize via Facebook; we "Google" candidates, and we join text-messaging lists and create Twitter hash tags to stay ahead of our issues.
No More 'Mass Media'
This development cuts across our social landscape and enhances core democratic values, empowering more (although not all) members of society. Like the many singers and musicians that make ThruYOU a work of tremendous grace, it prioritizes alternative voices over mainstream pap.
It's Sir Tim Berners-Lee's end-to-end principle in action. Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web with the understanding that the freedom to connect to anyone, anywhere was the Internet's First Amendment.
This openness, known to many as Net Neutrality, leaves ultimate control over your online experience with you, the user.
Taming the Dinosaurs
Users of the Internet may take Net Neutrality for granted. But this could change if the dinosaurs of old media (namely, phone, cable, recording and film companies) are successful in taming new media that threaten their twentieth-century fiefdoms.
They've talked about filtering content for perceived violations of copyright and have been caught blocking access to popular Web applications that put control over video more firmly in users' hands. They have deployed their lobbyists, lawyers and PR flacks to paint Net Neutrality as cumbersome regulation that will destroy their plans to enhance your Web experience - as if they knew what that was.
Congress will have the opportunity this year to stop old media's latest plans to remake our Internet in their image. Net Neutrality has the support of several key members, the White House and the incoming FCC leadership; it's only a matter of time before legislation makes it to the floor.
These are hopeful signs for Kutiman and the next genius who seizes upon the Internet to take us all to a new level.
The latest, if you haven't already heard, comes via Kutiman, an Israeli Web impresario who mashed and mixed video clips of amateur YouTube musicians to create a near-flawless overture to the Twittering masses.
ThruYOU, his resulting record (if you can call it that), has taken the Web by storm, garnering more than a million YouTube views in the seven days since its release.
That's impressive when you consider its humble beginnings. Kutiman sent an e-mail about the project to just 20 friends. They told their friends about it and ThruYOU took on a life of its own, spreading like a netroots brushfire via Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, YouTube and blogs.
| Track 3 |
After seeing ThruYOU yesterday, Larry Lessig, the author of "Remix," the bible of the free-culture generation, wrote: "Watch this, and you'll understand everything and more than what I try to explain in my book."
Jon Newton of P2P.net added that ThruYOU is "absolutely, 100% guaranteed to inspire artists around the world to produce art which has never been seen before, and never could have been seen without the Internet."
All Bets Are Off
Kutiman, who also goes by the name Ophir Kutiel, has captured the Zeitgeist of the moment - a time when our rapidly evolving Internet culture is toppling old regimes and handing over control of popular information to people like you, me, Kutiman and his YouTube orchestra.
| Track 1 |
In fact, that change is already happening.
In politics, economics, arts and culture, an era of privileged access is giving way to something that's much more decentralized, participatory and personal.
We no longer passively consume media, we actively participate in it. This often means creating content, in whatever form and from whatever sources -- what author Jonathan Zittrain calls "generativity."
We no longer limit our political involvement to television and the polling booth. We organize via Facebook; we "Google" candidates, and we join text-messaging lists and create Twitter hash tags to stay ahead of our issues.
No More 'Mass Media'
This development cuts across our social landscape and enhances core democratic values, empowering more (although not all) members of society. Like the many singers and musicians that make ThruYOU a work of tremendous grace, it prioritizes alternative voices over mainstream pap.
| Track 6 |
This openness, known to many as Net Neutrality, leaves ultimate control over your online experience with you, the user.
Taming the Dinosaurs
Users of the Internet may take Net Neutrality for granted. But this could change if the dinosaurs of old media (namely, phone, cable, recording and film companies) are successful in taming new media that threaten their twentieth-century fiefdoms.
They've talked about filtering content for perceived violations of copyright and have been caught blocking access to popular Web applications that put control over video more firmly in users' hands. They have deployed their lobbyists, lawyers and PR flacks to paint Net Neutrality as cumbersome regulation that will destroy their plans to enhance your Web experience - as if they knew what that was.
Congress will have the opportunity this year to stop old media's latest plans to remake our Internet in their image. Net Neutrality has the support of several key members, the White House and the incoming FCC leadership; it's only a matter of time before legislation makes it to the floor.
These are hopeful signs for Kutiman and the next genius who seizes upon the Internet to take us all to a new level.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Obama's FCC Pick Another Good Sign for Open Media
As anticipated, Julius Genachowski has been tapped by President Barack Obama to head the Federal Communications Commission.
The move is another indication that incoming leadership in Washington will move decisively to protect the free flowing Internet from those seeking to become gatekeepers to new media.
It also fulfills Obama's promise made on the campaign trail to appoint an FCC chair who shares his support for Net Neutrality.
If confirmed by Senate, Genachowski would replace Kevin Martin, who left the agency the day Obama came into office. He brings two decades of experience from both the industry and policy side, having served as a top-executive in IT and venture capital firms and as former FCC Chairman Reed Hundt's chief legal counsel.
Genachowski also anchored the drafting of Obama's comprehensive media policy agenda that promotes fast and neutral Internet connections, and more competitive choices for the consumer.
"It is clear that he understands the importance of open networks and a regulatory environment that promotes innovation and competition to a robust democracy and a healthy economy," said Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge.
Net Neutrality Momentum
With Genachowski's nomination, the pieces are falling into place for strong Net Neutrality protections under the new administration.
Written into the DNA of President Obama economic stimulus is the requirement that those who build Internet networks (using the nearly $4.7 billion in NTIA grants provided by the legislation) adhere to the nondiscrimination and openness principles at the core of Net Neutrality.
Obama himself pledged to "take a back seat to no one" in his commitment to Net Neutrality. And the administration's technology policies now posted on the White House Web site list Net Neutrality as the top priority.
Also, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced last month that he will lead the influential Senate Commerce subcommittee on communications and technology.
Kerry is a longtime supporter of Net Neutrality, who wrote to SavetheInternet.com activists that "Net Neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society."
New v. Old, Open v. Closed
Genachowski will play a central role during a unique time in media history.
Open Internet supporters on the Hill, in the White House and at the FCC are facing off against industry interests who often wield their influence over communications policy to lock down new media innovation and protect their media fiefdoms.
Through a combination of forces -- including remarkable developments in technology, surging user ingenuity, industry turmoil and policy mistakes -- old and new media have arrived at a volatile moment.
It's a conflict that pits new ideas about grassroots and decentralized communications against old ideologies about top-down information control.
The decisions made in the next few years by Genachowski, Obama and their Washington allies will determine the outcome. His appointment should give open Internet supporters confidence that we're on the right track.
The move is another indication that incoming leadership in Washington will move decisively to protect the free flowing Internet from those seeking to become gatekeepers to new media.
It also fulfills Obama's promise made on the campaign trail to appoint an FCC chair who shares his support for Net Neutrality.
 Genachowski |
Genachowski also anchored the drafting of Obama's comprehensive media policy agenda that promotes fast and neutral Internet connections, and more competitive choices for the consumer.
"It is clear that he understands the importance of open networks and a regulatory environment that promotes innovation and competition to a robust democracy and a healthy economy," said Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge.
Net Neutrality Momentum
With Genachowski's nomination, the pieces are falling into place for strong Net Neutrality protections under the new administration.
Written into the DNA of President Obama economic stimulus is the requirement that those who build Internet networks (using the nearly $4.7 billion in NTIA grants provided by the legislation) adhere to the nondiscrimination and openness principles at the core of Net Neutrality.
| Obama's goals for the FCC |
Also, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced last month that he will lead the influential Senate Commerce subcommittee on communications and technology.
Kerry is a longtime supporter of Net Neutrality, who wrote to SavetheInternet.com activists that "Net Neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society."
New v. Old, Open v. Closed
Genachowski will play a central role during a unique time in media history.
Open Internet supporters on the Hill, in the White House and at the FCC are facing off against industry interests who often wield their influence over communications policy to lock down new media innovation and protect their media fiefdoms.
Through a combination of forces -- including remarkable developments in technology, surging user ingenuity, industry turmoil and policy mistakes -- old and new media have arrived at a volatile moment.
It's a conflict that pits new ideas about grassroots and decentralized communications against old ideologies about top-down information control.
The decisions made in the next few years by Genachowski, Obama and their Washington allies will determine the outcome. His appointment should give open Internet supporters confidence that we're on the right track.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Celine Dion is Stalking You
Ever get the feeling that a terrible Celine Dion song is stalking you via the radio? Every time you scan the dial there it is taunting your heart to "go on and on... forever."
You're not being paranoid.
Commercial radio stations everywhere have been swallowed up by a handful of giant corporations, playlists have shrunk, and local and independent acts have been drowned out, as Big Radio soaks listeners in a mind-numbing concoction of saccharine and aspartame.
The good news is that your rescue is at hand. On Tuesday, Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) introduced a bipartisan bill that would pry open our radio airwaves for thousands of new stations, bringing independent acts like Animal Collective, Rebel Diaz and Bunny's a Swine to the audiences they deserve.
Unleashing Radio's Potential
The Local Community Radio Act would unleash the potential of new music for millions of listeners across the country. The bill tasks Washington with licensing thousands of Low Power FM radio stations (known in radio geekdom as LPFM).
There are about 800 low-power stations already on the air. They're run out of college campuses, garages, backyard shacks, and local churches, and aimed specifically at listeners in their surrounding neighborhood.
And they're not just airing independent music. Some are providing local news and information that in more extreme cases has kept people alive.
Hoarding Air
We made a run at getting up to 3,000 more LPFM station on the air in the last Congress; more than 100 members supported a similar bill in 2008.
But it ran afoul of Big Media's lobbying arm, the National Association of Broadcasters, which makes its living off hoarding the public airwaves for a small corporate clientele - including many of the broadcasters that put Celine Dion on your tail.
The prospects for the new bipartisan bill are better. Groups like Free Press, Prometheus Radio Project and the Future of Music Coalition are ready to fight off the lobbyists and their efforts to quash new radio. Already 1,300 people have joined a Facebook group dedicated to "use new media to save old media."
And a new Twitter hash tag (#lpfm) is now generating updates as the Local Community Radio Act moves through Congress.
A Megaphone for the Many
That's something, but it may not be enough to give radio listeners real choices and new voices at every turn of the dial.
We need every member of Congress to support this bill - yes I want unanimous support when it goes to a vote. It could be Congress's first real display of bipartisanship.
What better way to ring in a new era of participatory media than by injecting new blood into a radio system that's been a megaphone for the few, for far too long.
You're not being paranoid.
Commercial radio stations everywhere have been swallowed up by a handful of giant corporations, playlists have shrunk, and local and independent acts have been drowned out, as Big Radio soaks listeners in a mind-numbing concoction of saccharine and aspartame.
The good news is that your rescue is at hand. On Tuesday, Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) and Lee Terry (R-Neb.) introduced a bipartisan bill that would pry open our radio airwaves for thousands of new stations, bringing independent acts like Animal Collective, Rebel Diaz and Bunny's a Swine to the audiences they deserve.
Unleashing Radio's Potential
The Local Community Radio Act would unleash the potential of new music for millions of listeners across the country. The bill tasks Washington with licensing thousands of Low Power FM radio stations (known in radio geekdom as LPFM).
There are about 800 low-power stations already on the air. They're run out of college campuses, garages, backyard shacks, and local churches, and aimed specifically at listeners in their surrounding neighborhood.
And they're not just airing independent music. Some are providing local news and information that in more extreme cases has kept people alive.
Hoarding Air
| Why local radio matters |
But it ran afoul of Big Media's lobbying arm, the National Association of Broadcasters, which makes its living off hoarding the public airwaves for a small corporate clientele - including many of the broadcasters that put Celine Dion on your tail.
The prospects for the new bipartisan bill are better. Groups like Free Press, Prometheus Radio Project and the Future of Music Coalition are ready to fight off the lobbyists and their efforts to quash new radio. Already 1,300 people have joined a Facebook group dedicated to "use new media to save old media."
And a new Twitter hash tag (#lpfm) is now generating updates as the Local Community Radio Act moves through Congress.
A Megaphone for the Many
That's something, but it may not be enough to give radio listeners real choices and new voices at every turn of the dial.
We need every member of Congress to support this bill - yes I want unanimous support when it goes to a vote. It could be Congress's first real display of bipartisanship.
What better way to ring in a new era of participatory media than by injecting new blood into a radio system that's been a megaphone for the few, for far too long.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Netroots Nation Panels
I spoke on/moderated these from last July:
This one on big, bad telcos with Cindy Cohn of EFF, Michael Kieschnick of Credo Active, Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com:
This one on "inside-outside" organizing with Adam Green of Moveon.org, Liz Rose of the ACLU, Andre Banks of ColorofChange, Joan McCarter of DailyKos and my colleague Craig Aaron (moderator):
This one on big, bad telcos with Cindy Cohn of EFF, Michael Kieschnick of Credo Active, Nancy Keenan of NARAL Pro-Choice America and Matt Stoller of OpenLeft.com:
This one on "inside-outside" organizing with Adam Green of Moveon.org, Liz Rose of the ACLU, Andre Banks of ColorofChange, Joan McCarter of DailyKos and my colleague Craig Aaron (moderator):
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Obama's Blogger Moment Recalls Darker Episode
News Flash. Huffington Post wasn't the first new media blog to be formally called upon at a presidential news conference.
President George W. Bush and his press secretaries often looked for right-wing blogger Jeff Gannon (aka James D. Guckert) as safe quarter in the White House press room.
Gannon prided himself as "a conservative journalist embedded with the liberal Washington press corps" and would routinely toss the president a lifeline when questions from other correspondents strayed from the official line.
This alliance worked well for a White House press office seeking always to keep the media on message; Gannon was called upon up to a dozen times between 2003, when he secured daily White House credentials, and February 2005.
But Gannon's run ended after a particularly partisan question about Bush's opinion of congressional Democrats who were, in his words, "divorced from reality."
A blogger investigation of his "reporting" at Talon News found that Gannon often lifted large portions from RNC and White House press releases -- verbatim and without attribution.
But that's not all. We also uncovered Gannon's apparent double life involving gay pornography Web sites that promoted male prostitution -- his own.
Gannon soon departed but his residency in the East Wing was one in a history of media low points for an administration that put staged propaganda before real reporting.
So while Monday night's question was a buzz-worthy moment for bloggers -- and a proud accomplishment for the Huffington Post -- its precedent reveals the darker side of a new media world where the line between reporter and propagandist can get blurry.
President George W. Bush and his press secretaries often looked for right-wing blogger Jeff Gannon (aka James D. Guckert) as safe quarter in the White House press room.
Gannon prided himself as "a conservative journalist embedded with the liberal Washington press corps" and would routinely toss the president a lifeline when questions from other correspondents strayed from the official line.
This alliance worked well for a White House press office seeking always to keep the media on message; Gannon was called upon up to a dozen times between 2003, when he secured daily White House credentials, and February 2005.
 White House Gannon |
A blogger investigation of his "reporting" at Talon News found that Gannon often lifted large portions from RNC and White House press releases -- verbatim and without attribution.
But that's not all. We also uncovered Gannon's apparent double life involving gay pornography Web sites that promoted male prostitution -- his own.
 Moonlighting Guckert |
So while Monday night's question was a buzz-worthy moment for bloggers -- and a proud accomplishment for the Huffington Post -- its precedent reveals the darker side of a new media world where the line between reporter and propagandist can get blurry.
Friday, February 06, 2009
McCain and Limbaugh's Murky Crystal Ball
Should it be a surprise that a guy who doesn't know how to send e-mail can't grasp why the Internet is important?
Sen. John McCain -- known to have never gone online -- led the charge on Capitol Hill this week to strip the Internet from President Obama's economic stimulus package.
McCain joins media blowhards Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, who in their latest crusade against reality think that connecting Americans to the information superhighway has nothing to do with getting our economy back on track.
Before anyone else jumps on board to trash the Internet, let's set the record straight.
Getting more people connected to broadband is the kind of stimulus that expands education and opportunity, promotes innovation and makes the United States more globally competitive. Among other things expanding broadband could reduce health care costs, help our kids in school, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and make it easier for citizens take part in our democracy.
Building broadband means putting immediately back to work engineers, technicians, equipment manufactures, vendors and construction workers to lay fiber optic cables, raise wireless towers and connect American homes.
And that's just the start. Those who initially developed the Internet never imagined it would become such a tremendous engine for growth across every sector of the economy. The challenge Americans face in the 21st century is to extend this new prosperity to the tens of millions of Americans who can't get connected.
Real Progress
That's why Candidate Obama made promoting open and affordable high-speed Internet a part of his 2008 campaign. It's why President Obama has made it a cornerstone of his recovery plan.
It's the sort of vision for change that got him elected. And it's vital to our long-term survival that we continue to embrace this idea of real American progress.
Obama's stimulus bill has had a bumpy ride through Senate. While it's on track to be signed by the president next week, the Internet piece of the stimulus has come under assault by a series of broadband bozos.
McCain told Fox News Channel that broadband "had nothing to do" with stimulating the economy. Rush Limbaugh told his listeners he hoped Obama's recovery plan would fail calling such infrastructure spending "far-left collectivism."
And CNN's Lou Dobbs said there was not a lot of "real exacting thinking" about the plan. That's certainly true in regard to Dobbs reporting but not in regard to Obama's vision of a better Internet.
Leaving the Dinosaurs Behind
The Stimulus bill is just a first step - a piece of a much larger puzzle to bring the benefits of broadband to everyone -- which is why we need to work overtime to make sure that this attack on reality doesn't go unanswered.
At Free Press, we're fighting to ensure affordable Internet access is a basic right of every American, and that the Internet fosters free speech and openness at a time when information gatekeepers seek total control.
High-speed Internet is the infrastructure of our time. Passing the stimulus bill is only the beginning of the effort to make the Internet as ubiquitous as electricity, water and highways.
But don't tell that to the old guard of Washington politics and media. Outliers like McCain, Dobbs and Limbaugh can only see their own reflections when they peer into their crystal balls.
We have a choice to make. We can remain stuck in the past while these dinosaurs stand in the way of real progress. Or we can put good ideas ahead of old ideologies and get started on building a new era of American opportunity.
Sen. John McCain -- known to have never gone online -- led the charge on Capitol Hill this week to strip the Internet from President Obama's economic stimulus package.
McCain joins media blowhards Rush Limbaugh and Lou Dobbs, who in their latest crusade against reality think that connecting Americans to the information superhighway has nothing to do with getting our economy back on track.
Before anyone else jumps on board to trash the Internet, let's set the record straight.
Getting more people connected to broadband is the kind of stimulus that expands education and opportunity, promotes innovation and makes the United States more globally competitive. Among other things expanding broadband could reduce health care costs, help our kids in school, create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and make it easier for citizens take part in our democracy.
| Why connecting matters |
And that's just the start. Those who initially developed the Internet never imagined it would become such a tremendous engine for growth across every sector of the economy. The challenge Americans face in the 21st century is to extend this new prosperity to the tens of millions of Americans who can't get connected.
Real Progress
That's why Candidate Obama made promoting open and affordable high-speed Internet a part of his 2008 campaign. It's why President Obama has made it a cornerstone of his recovery plan.
It's the sort of vision for change that got him elected. And it's vital to our long-term survival that we continue to embrace this idea of real American progress.
Obama's stimulus bill has had a bumpy ride through Senate. While it's on track to be signed by the president next week, the Internet piece of the stimulus has come under assault by a series of broadband bozos.
McCain told Fox News Channel that broadband "had nothing to do" with stimulating the economy. Rush Limbaugh told his listeners he hoped Obama's recovery plan would fail calling such infrastructure spending "far-left collectivism."
And CNN's Lou Dobbs said there was not a lot of "real exacting thinking" about the plan. That's certainly true in regard to Dobbs reporting but not in regard to Obama's vision of a better Internet.
Leaving the Dinosaurs Behind
The Stimulus bill is just a first step - a piece of a much larger puzzle to bring the benefits of broadband to everyone -- which is why we need to work overtime to make sure that this attack on reality doesn't go unanswered.
At Free Press, we're fighting to ensure affordable Internet access is a basic right of every American, and that the Internet fosters free speech and openness at a time when information gatekeepers seek total control.
High-speed Internet is the infrastructure of our time. Passing the stimulus bill is only the beginning of the effort to make the Internet as ubiquitous as electricity, water and highways.
But don't tell that to the old guard of Washington politics and media. Outliers like McCain, Dobbs and Limbaugh can only see their own reflections when they peer into their crystal balls.
We have a choice to make. We can remain stuck in the past while these dinosaurs stand in the way of real progress. Or we can put good ideas ahead of old ideologies and get started on building a new era of American opportunity.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
More Ghosts in the Machine
Cox Communications, the nation's third-largest cable company, on Tuesday unveiled a plan to monitor and slow Internet content it deems unimportant.
With this news, Cox joins the ranks of other Internet providers willing to tempt legal fate by getting between customers and their access to the free-flowing Web.
Comcast -- which the FCC sanctioned last year for just this type of interference – had secretly blocked access to legal file-sharing applications to users the cable giant deemed “bandwidth hogs.”
Undaunted, Comcast reportedly has now joined AT&T in a new effort to filter Web traffic for files deemed inappropriate by movie and recording industry lawyers.
Cox has decided that certain Web traffic is “less time-sensitive,” and will be blocked in favor of other “more timely” content during periods of high congestion. They plan to test this system on their lucky customers in Kansas and Arkansas before rolling it out nationwide.
The Rise of the Deemers
Who decides what’s more sensitive and less sensitive on the Internet? Apparently, the deemers do.
And that’s the problem.
The lesson we learned from Comcast’s misadventures in network management is to be skeptical of any practice that comes between users and the Internet – even if it’s deemed appropriate by those standing behind the curtain.
And while Cox has called its gatekeeper intentions sound, its Web site gives little indication about how these practices will affect Internet users. Nor does it indicate that they plan to comply with the FCC's Internet Policy Statement, which helps guarantee that control of your Internet experience ultimately resides with you – the user.
“As a general rule, we're concerned about any cable or phone company picking winners and losers online,” said Ben Scott, Free Press policy director. “These kinds of practices cut against the fundamental neutrality of the open Internet.” Free Press has urged the FCC to subject Cox’s new practice to close scrutiny.
Internet Juju
“One always has to wonder what kind of juju is going on behind closed doors when a plan such as this is announced,” writes Darren Murph of Endgadget, referring to Cox. But Murph’s comment applies just as easily to the magic behind Hollywood’s plan to police the Internet with the aid of these same ISPs.
It’s a “kind of juju” called deep packet inspection, or DPI, which allows network managers to inspect, track and target user messages as they move along the Information Superhighway.
Simply put, DPI is the Internet equivalent of the mailman opening and reading your mail to decide whether or not to deliver it.
Last year, ISPs declared before Congress that they were siding with Internet users and "keeping their distance" from DPI. But we did our own deep packet inspection and found that the network providers' actions often speak louder than their testimony.
Playing God on the Net
DPI forms the cornerstone of plans to profit from policing Web content. Using this filtering technology, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast would be able to decide whether a user packet is allowed to pass or be routed to a different lane.
It lets them pry open user's trunks, erect new tolls and sell off or bar privileged access based on what they find inside.
“In a time when information is everything, it's not an Internet provider's place to determine what content is worthy of bandwidth and what content isn't,” writes J.R. Raphael of PC World. “Ranking activities and adjusting their speed is no different. Ultimately, that's called playing God -- and sorry to tell ya, Cox, but your power shouldn't be supreme.”
With this news, Cox joins the ranks of other Internet providers willing to tempt legal fate by getting between customers and their access to the free-flowing Web.
Comcast -- which the FCC sanctioned last year for just this type of interference – had secretly blocked access to legal file-sharing applications to users the cable giant deemed “bandwidth hogs.”
Undaunted, Comcast reportedly has now joined AT&T in a new effort to filter Web traffic for files deemed inappropriate by movie and recording industry lawyers.
 Cox Communications: Your Friend in the Digital Age |
The Rise of the Deemers
Who decides what’s more sensitive and less sensitive on the Internet? Apparently, the deemers do.
And that’s the problem.
The lesson we learned from Comcast’s misadventures in network management is to be skeptical of any practice that comes between users and the Internet – even if it’s deemed appropriate by those standing behind the curtain.
And while Cox has called its gatekeeper intentions sound, its Web site gives little indication about how these practices will affect Internet users. Nor does it indicate that they plan to comply with the FCC's Internet Policy Statement, which helps guarantee that control of your Internet experience ultimately resides with you – the user.
“As a general rule, we're concerned about any cable or phone company picking winners and losers online,” said Ben Scott, Free Press policy director. “These kinds of practices cut against the fundamental neutrality of the open Internet.” Free Press has urged the FCC to subject Cox’s new practice to close scrutiny.
Internet Juju
“One always has to wonder what kind of juju is going on behind closed doors when a plan such as this is announced,” writes Darren Murph of Endgadget, referring to Cox. But Murph’s comment applies just as easily to the magic behind Hollywood’s plan to police the Internet with the aid of these same ISPs.
It’s a “kind of juju” called deep packet inspection, or DPI, which allows network managers to inspect, track and target user messages as they move along the Information Superhighway.
Simply put, DPI is the Internet equivalent of the mailman opening and reading your mail to decide whether or not to deliver it.
Last year, ISPs declared before Congress that they were siding with Internet users and "keeping their distance" from DPI. But we did our own deep packet inspection and found that the network providers' actions often speak louder than their testimony.
Playing God on the Net
DPI forms the cornerstone of plans to profit from policing Web content. Using this filtering technology, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast would be able to decide whether a user packet is allowed to pass or be routed to a different lane.
It lets them pry open user's trunks, erect new tolls and sell off or bar privileged access based on what they find inside.
“In a time when information is everything, it's not an Internet provider's place to determine what content is worthy of bandwidth and what content isn't,” writes J.R. Raphael of PC World. “Ranking activities and adjusting their speed is no different. Ultimately, that's called playing God -- and sorry to tell ya, Cox, but your power shouldn't be supreme.”
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Change or Cha-ching?
Change has come to America. Well, sort of. On "K" Street - home to Washington's most powerful corporate lobbyists - it's business as usual.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the scrum of lobbyists gathering around President Obama's economic stimulus package. Hearings started yesterday in the House Appropriations Committee and they're already lining the halls outside chambers.
Without a strong public interest voice at the table, lobbyists could steer billions in taxpayer dollars toward a corporate welfare boondoggle. This lost opportunity would be felt most acutely in our efforts to close America's gaping digital divide.
The Internet Economy
Obama has set aside $6 billion for broadband deployment and has been outspoken about the Internet's role in jump starting our "21st century economy," allowing small rural businesses to compete in global markets and giving every child a chance to access fast and open Internet technology.
For Ashea Williams, a special education teacher at Washington D.C.'s Arts and Technology Academy, it's a change that couldn't come soon enough for her young students. "A lot of our students do not have Internet access," she said last week. "So a lot of the activities that we do here at school they cannot expand upon at home. So the learning ends here."
If done right - by building an open and affordable network with plentiful service options -- Obama's economic stimulus plan could close the digital divide for many of Williams' students, and also for those living in rural America.
Business as Usual
But don't tell that to the many lobbyists and "analysts" plying their trade in Washington.
In their ears, "economic stimulus" means an opportunity to cash in on lucrative deals shilling for corporate interests.
One of them, Robert Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, has been busy convincing the Beltway that this taxpayer money should be handed over to broadband incumbents like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- with few to no strings attached.
"We have got to focus on what this is all about," he said recently at a forum on Internet and the economic stimulus package. "This is not about broadband reform -- this is about stimulus... Stimulus has to have one goal, and that is to get as much investment in as fast a time as possible."
Change, Not 'Cha-ching'
Get out your DC decoder rings to descramble this message. What Atkinson really means is that change isn't needed for America's Internet - not even at a time when our country has slid to 22nd in the world in high-speed Internet adoption.
In Atkinson's view, we merely need to funnel taxpayer dollars to the same phone and cable companies that got us into this problem. They'll pocket the cash and continue to:
And he's not alone. Legions of lobbyists are taking a stand with the phone and cable companies to fight conditions like non-discrimination and open access that would guarantee that this public money actually serves the public good.
Stimulus for Whom?
The stimulus bill as it's drafted sets a different tone. It states that companies receiving broadband grants must allow consumers to access the Internet with no controls placed on their Web traffic or choice of content. Another provision calls for "open access" rules - which guarantee more competition -- to guide this stimulus.
Nowhere does it say that taxpayers should prop up a powerful duopoly that has served us poorly in the past. But this could change if the lobbyists get the ear of Congress and strike these conditions from the bill.
Stimulus is critical and the Internet has an important part to play in spreading economic opportunity. But simply enriching AT&T is not the answer.
We need to preserve these built-in guarantees so that our public money will build a better, more open and affordable system.
But Congress is moving so quickly, and big phone and cable are lobbying so ferociously, that we risk watching this chance turn into yet another corporate handout - one that enriches the phone and cable companies instead of investing in the change that Ashea Williams and her students need.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the scrum of lobbyists gathering around President Obama's economic stimulus package. Hearings started yesterday in the House Appropriations Committee and they're already lining the halls outside chambers.
Without a strong public interest voice at the table, lobbyists could steer billions in taxpayer dollars toward a corporate welfare boondoggle. This lost opportunity would be felt most acutely in our efforts to close America's gaping digital divide.
The Internet Economy
| Obama's Kids |
For Ashea Williams, a special education teacher at Washington D.C.'s Arts and Technology Academy, it's a change that couldn't come soon enough for her young students. "A lot of our students do not have Internet access," she said last week. "So a lot of the activities that we do here at school they cannot expand upon at home. So the learning ends here."
If done right - by building an open and affordable network with plentiful service options -- Obama's economic stimulus plan could close the digital divide for many of Williams' students, and also for those living in rural America.
Business as Usual
But don't tell that to the many lobbyists and "analysts" plying their trade in Washington.
In their ears, "economic stimulus" means an opportunity to cash in on lucrative deals shilling for corporate interests.
One of them, Robert Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, has been busy convincing the Beltway that this taxpayer money should be handed over to broadband incumbents like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- with few to no strings attached.
"We have got to focus on what this is all about," he said recently at a forum on Internet and the economic stimulus package. "This is not about broadband reform -- this is about stimulus... Stimulus has to have one goal, and that is to get as much investment in as fast a time as possible."
Change, Not 'Cha-ching'
Get out your DC decoder rings to descramble this message. What Atkinson really means is that change isn't needed for America's Internet - not even at a time when our country has slid to 22nd in the world in high-speed Internet adoption.
In Atkinson's view, we merely need to funnel taxpayer dollars to the same phone and cable companies that got us into this problem. They'll pocket the cash and continue to:
- Exert their near complete control over America's broadband market;
- Stifle new innovation and market entrants; and
- Charge users higher prices for slower speeds than what's available to people in other developed nations.
And he's not alone. Legions of lobbyists are taking a stand with the phone and cable companies to fight conditions like non-discrimination and open access that would guarantee that this public money actually serves the public good.
Stimulus for Whom?
The stimulus bill as it's drafted sets a different tone. It states that companies receiving broadband grants must allow consumers to access the Internet with no controls placed on their Web traffic or choice of content. Another provision calls for "open access" rules - which guarantee more competition -- to guide this stimulus.
Nowhere does it say that taxpayers should prop up a powerful duopoly that has served us poorly in the past. But this could change if the lobbyists get the ear of Congress and strike these conditions from the bill.
Stimulus is critical and the Internet has an important part to play in spreading economic opportunity. But simply enriching AT&T is not the answer.
We need to preserve these built-in guarantees so that our public money will build a better, more open and affordable system.
But Congress is moving so quickly, and big phone and cable are lobbying so ferociously, that we risk watching this chance turn into yet another corporate handout - one that enriches the phone and cable companies instead of investing in the change that Ashea Williams and her students need.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Back to Business as Usual
A quote caught my attention on this first full day of the Obama Administration. It’s from a story on America’s economic stimulus package.
Our new president plans to set aside $6 billion to connect more Americans to the Internet. And his broadband plan is now on a fast track through Congress. (A House hearing is scheduled for today).
If done right, the plan could help close the digital divide, spread economic opportunity and ensure an open Internet for everyone.
But don’t tell that to the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a Washington think tank that’s a part of Washington’s own economic stimulus racket. Robert Atkinson supports taxpayer money for broadband but prefers it be delivered with no strings attached.
Here’s what Atkinson had to say:
And he’s telegraphing to companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast that he will stand with them to fight conditions like non-discrimination and open access that would guarantee that public money for broadband actually serves the public good.
Obama’s own tech platform sets a different tone:
Obama also lists Net Neutrality and “the full and free exchange of information through an open Internet” as his top technology priority as president.
Stimulus is critical. And the Internet has an important part to play in spreading economic opportunity. But simply enriching AT&T is not the answer. We need built-in guarantees that our public money will build a better, more open and affordable system.
What you’re witnessing in Atkinson’s comments is his own audition for an economic bailout. ITIF appears to be one in a long list of coin-operated think tanks that strike lucrative deals with industry. The game goes something like this: “You support my little group financially and we’ll churn out ‘analysis’ that you can cite as evidence while you lobby Congress for corporate handouts.”
Despite our new president this still seems to be the real business of Washington, and, sadly, Atkinson is playing his part.
Our new president plans to set aside $6 billion to connect more Americans to the Internet. And his broadband plan is now on a fast track through Congress. (A House hearing is scheduled for today).
If done right, the plan could help close the digital divide, spread economic opportunity and ensure an open Internet for everyone.
But don’t tell that to the president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), a Washington think tank that’s a part of Washington’s own economic stimulus racket. Robert Atkinson supports taxpayer money for broadband but prefers it be delivered with no strings attached.
Here’s what Atkinson had to say:
"We have got to focus on what this is all about. This is not about broadband reform -- this is about stimulus... Stimulus has to have one goal, and that is to get as much investment in as fast a time as possible.”Get out your DC decoder rings folks. What Atkinson really means by this is change ain’t needed – not even at a time when America has slid to 22nd in the world in high-speed Internet adoption.We merely need to funnel taxpayer dollars to the same phone and cable companies that got us into this problem. They’ll pocket the change and continue to:
- exert their near complete control over America’s broadband market,
- stifle new innovation and market entrants, and
- charge users higher prices for slower speeds than what’s available to people in other developed nations.
And he’s telegraphing to companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast that he will stand with them to fight conditions like non-discrimination and open access that would guarantee that public money for broadband actually serves the public good.
Obama’s own tech platform sets a different tone:
"Deploy Next-Generation Broadband: Work towards true broadband in every community in America through a combination of reform of the Universal Service Fund, better use of the nation's wireless spectrum, promotion of next-generation facilities, technologies and applications, and new tax and loan incentives."Nowhere does it say that taxpayers should prop up a powerful market duopoly that has served us poorly in the past.
Obama also lists Net Neutrality and “the full and free exchange of information through an open Internet” as his top technology priority as president.
Stimulus is critical. And the Internet has an important part to play in spreading economic opportunity. But simply enriching AT&T is not the answer. We need built-in guarantees that our public money will build a better, more open and affordable system.
What you’re witnessing in Atkinson’s comments is his own audition for an economic bailout. ITIF appears to be one in a long list of coin-operated think tanks that strike lucrative deals with industry. The game goes something like this: “You support my little group financially and we’ll churn out ‘analysis’ that you can cite as evidence while you lobby Congress for corporate handouts.”
Despite our new president this still seems to be the real business of Washington, and, sadly, Atkinson is playing his part.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Strong Neutrality Advocate to Lead FCC
President-elect Barack Obama is due to tap Net Neutrality supporter Julius Genachowski to become chair of the Federal Communications Commission.
Genachowski is one of the principal architects of Obama’s pro-Neutrality tech and media platform, which was partially unveiled during a November 2007 event, at which Obama pledged to "ensure a free and full exchange of information" and "take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Network Neutrality."
Genachowski is well regarded in the technology community, both as the former chief counsel for Reed Hundt, an FCC chairman under President Bill Clinton, and as a private-sector entrepreneur and venture capitalist.
Expect Genachowski to turn his attention to bringing more choice to a broadband market controlled by a cartel of phone and cable companies.
He’s also expected to pry open valuable spectrum to broadband innovation and access, something his predecessor, the current FCC Chair Kevin Martin, said was a part of his own legacy at the agency. Indeed, more still needs to be done.
Net Neutrality is also a prominent feature in Obama’s plan for his FCC chief.
In October 2007 Obama pledged during a YouTube/MTV interview to reinstate Net Neutrality as the law of the land during his first year in office and to appoint as FCC chair someone who shares this view.
“I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality,” Obama said. “So as president I’m going to make sure that that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward.”
Genachowski influence on Obama has already yielded forward-looking policies as part of the change.gov technology and media platform that’s been posted by Obama’s transition team. According to the site, an Obama administration will hold to its campaign promises and “protect the openness of the Internet.”
“A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way,” Obama’s policy team states. “Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.”
Genachowski is one of the principal architects of Obama’s pro-Neutrality tech and media platform, which was partially unveiled during a November 2007 event, at which Obama pledged to "ensure a free and full exchange of information" and "take a backseat to no one in my commitment to Network Neutrality."
Genachowski in the front seat |
Expect Genachowski to turn his attention to bringing more choice to a broadband market controlled by a cartel of phone and cable companies.
He’s also expected to pry open valuable spectrum to broadband innovation and access, something his predecessor, the current FCC Chair Kevin Martin, said was a part of his own legacy at the agency. Indeed, more still needs to be done.
Net Neutrality is also a prominent feature in Obama’s plan for his FCC chief.
In October 2007 Obama pledged during a YouTube/MTV interview to reinstate Net Neutrality as the law of the land during his first year in office and to appoint as FCC chair someone who shares this view.
| Obama's goals for the FCC |
Genachowski influence on Obama has already yielded forward-looking policies as part of the change.gov technology and media platform that’s been posted by Obama’s transition team. According to the site, an Obama administration will hold to its campaign promises and “protect the openness of the Internet.”
“A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way,” Obama’s policy team states. “Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet.”
Friday, January 09, 2009
Obama's Democracy Stimulus
President-elect Barack Obama this morning delivered his first major speech of the new year, pledging to "put the American Dream within reach of the American people."
A core component of Obama's economic recovery plan is "expanding broadband lines across America" to give everyone the chance to get online.
Historically, presidents have turned to public works projects to jolt new life into flagging economies: Lincoln promoted the railroads; Roosevelt erected dams and strung power lines; Eisenhower built the Interstate highways.
The construction alone put thousands to work. And better infrastructure pumped new energy into the private sector, creating many more jobs and countless long-term economic benefits.
Internet is the infrastructure of our time, so it makes sense for Obama to turn special attention to improving this essential technology.
According to a 2007 study by the Brookings Institution, boosting U.S. broadband adoption by 20 percent -- putting America on par with a country like Denmark -- would create 3 million new jobs. But it doesn't end there.
Building better broadband is not a bailout. It's a buildout for better democracy.
Economic crisis or not, connecting everyone to a fast, open and affordable Internet will better our democracy as a whole. It's something we should have done well before mortgage bankers drove our economy off a cliff, well before the country fell from fourth to 15th in the world in broadband adoption. And it's something we should continue to prioritize well after this crisis is over.
Millions of people trapped on the wrong side of the digital divide are being deprived of a better education, good jobs and full participation in our democracy.
Obama's "American Dream" is a matter not only of enrichment but of engagement.
Last year, millions of people joined social networks, e-mail lists, online fundraisers and forums to support their favorite candidates and topple politics as usual in Washington. Even if you didn't vote for Obama, the Internet organizing that paved his way to the White House has transformed 21st-century politics.
This Internet movement doesn't end for Obama at the doorstep of the White House. As president, Obama needs to roll up his sleeves and work with all of us to ensure that every American has access to a fast, open and affordable Internet.
My colleague S. Derek Turner has created a detailed plan to use $44 billion in broadband stimulus spending that will help us get there. That's the "how." The "why" is really what's most important about this work.
In 2008, the Internet opened the door to a new kind of political power, one that's more diverse, grassroots and decentralized. In 2009, it's time we put that power in the hands of every American.
A core component of Obama's economic recovery plan is "expanding broadband lines across America" to give everyone the chance to get online.
Historically, presidents have turned to public works projects to jolt new life into flagging economies: Lincoln promoted the railroads; Roosevelt erected dams and strung power lines; Eisenhower built the Interstate highways.
The construction alone put thousands to work. And better infrastructure pumped new energy into the private sector, creating many more jobs and countless long-term economic benefits.
Internet is the infrastructure of our time, so it makes sense for Obama to turn special attention to improving this essential technology.
According to a 2007 study by the Brookings Institution, boosting U.S. broadband adoption by 20 percent -- putting America on par with a country like Denmark -- would create 3 million new jobs. But it doesn't end there.
Building better broadband is not a bailout. It's a buildout for better democracy.
| Connecting to the Dream |
Millions of people trapped on the wrong side of the digital divide are being deprived of a better education, good jobs and full participation in our democracy.
Obama's "American Dream" is a matter not only of enrichment but of engagement.
Last year, millions of people joined social networks, e-mail lists, online fundraisers and forums to support their favorite candidates and topple politics as usual in Washington. Even if you didn't vote for Obama, the Internet organizing that paved his way to the White House has transformed 21st-century politics.
This Internet movement doesn't end for Obama at the doorstep of the White House. As president, Obama needs to roll up his sleeves and work with all of us to ensure that every American has access to a fast, open and affordable Internet.
My colleague S. Derek Turner has created a detailed plan to use $44 billion in broadband stimulus spending that will help us get there. That's the "how." The "why" is really what's most important about this work.
In 2008, the Internet opened the door to a new kind of political power, one that's more diverse, grassroots and decentralized. In 2009, it's time we put that power in the hands of every American.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
WSJ Gets It Wrong: Net Neutrality Still in Front Seat.
We are now on the cusp of making history for an open Internet. But don't tell that to the Wall Street Journal, which today published an article that portrayed the movement for Net Neutrality as losing steam.
Say what?
In addition to the millions of Americans who have taken a stand in support of Net Neutrality, we have an incoming president who has pledged to "take a back seat to no one" in his commitment to Net Neutrality.
Morevover, several new members of Congress pledged their allegiance to Net Neutrality while getting elected. They all agree that the Internet should remain free and open to all users -- that we should be able to visit any Web content without network operators or others blocking, impairing or degrading our connection.
Journal Story: Much Ado About Nothing
It’s no surprise then, as we are about to make history, that powerful forces are aligning to stop this fundamental change from happening. The Wall Street Journal story paints support for Net Neutrality as ebbing, confusing a Google plan to utilize “edge caching” technology as a fundamental violation of Net Neutrality by one of its biggest corporate supporters.
According to Google, the “secret” program referred to by the Journal is nothing more a content caching technology that has been going on for years. There is no prioritization, they write, nor is there an ISP choosing fast lanes and slow lanes. Hundreds of companies do this to move content geographically closer to end-users.
Google has been a moving target for phone and cable industry lobbyists and their hired shills. “The Wall Street Journal is playing vessel for the latest attack,” writes Karl Bode of Broadband Reports.
“It's a nice win for whichever cable company leaked the news as it paints Google as a hypocrite ahead of next year's renewed fight over network neutrality legislation,” Bode continues. “However, the Wall Street Journal is intentionally distorting Google's proposal for political effect.”
(David Isenberg goes one step further, saying the Journal story set off his special detector.)
The Public Mandate
If Google or any other tech company were secretly violating Net Neutrality, there would be an absolute and cataclysmic backlash from the grassroots and netroots who have made Net Neutrality a signature issue in 21st Century politics. The Internet community would come crashing down on their heads like Minutemen on Benedict Arnold.
Those covering this issue love to portray Net Neutrality as clash of corporate titans. But it’s not up to AT&T, Comcast -- or Google -- whether we have Net Neutrality. It’s up to the public, and we’re not giving up the fight for a free and open Internet.
The Journal story also implies that President-elect Barack Obama has softened his support for Net Neutrality. Where’s the evidence of that? Oddly, the journal doesn’t actually ask Obama or his transition team to comment.
Obama in the Driver's Seat
We do know this though. The president-elect has made numerous public statements on the campaign trail and published a detailed policy document placing Net Neutrality as his top priority. He’s explicitly opposed paid “quality of service” arrangements and was also a co-sponsor of the Dorgan-Snowe bill that is the strongest Net Neutrality legislation ever proposed.
Contrary to claims of the Journal that Net Neutrality forces are receding, we are actually closer now than ever before to victory. We have arrived at the moment when Net Neutrality has its greatest appeal, clearest need, and best chance of becoming law.
Our opponents will try to divide and distract us. But now is not the time to retreat but to move forward.
= = = =
UPDATE: On Monday, SavetheInternet.com asked its activists to write President-elect Obama and ask him to re-affirm his commitment to Net Neutrality. Later in the day he did. Read the report at "Talking Points Memo."
Say what?
| Obama: 'Backseat to no one' |
Morevover, several new members of Congress pledged their allegiance to Net Neutrality while getting elected. They all agree that the Internet should remain free and open to all users -- that we should be able to visit any Web content without network operators or others blocking, impairing or degrading our connection.
Journal Story: Much Ado About Nothing
It’s no surprise then, as we are about to make history, that powerful forces are aligning to stop this fundamental change from happening. The Wall Street Journal story paints support for Net Neutrality as ebbing, confusing a Google plan to utilize “edge caching” technology as a fundamental violation of Net Neutrality by one of its biggest corporate supporters.
According to Google, the “secret” program referred to by the Journal is nothing more a content caching technology that has been going on for years. There is no prioritization, they write, nor is there an ISP choosing fast lanes and slow lanes. Hundreds of companies do this to move content geographically closer to end-users.
Google has been a moving target for phone and cable industry lobbyists and their hired shills. “The Wall Street Journal is playing vessel for the latest attack,” writes Karl Bode of Broadband Reports.
“It's a nice win for whichever cable company leaked the news as it paints Google as a hypocrite ahead of next year's renewed fight over network neutrality legislation,” Bode continues. “However, the Wall Street Journal is intentionally distorting Google's proposal for political effect.”
(David Isenberg goes one step further, saying the Journal story set off his special detector.)
The Public Mandate
If Google or any other tech company were secretly violating Net Neutrality, there would be an absolute and cataclysmic backlash from the grassroots and netroots who have made Net Neutrality a signature issue in 21st Century politics. The Internet community would come crashing down on their heads like Minutemen on Benedict Arnold.
Those covering this issue love to portray Net Neutrality as clash of corporate titans. But it’s not up to AT&T, Comcast -- or Google -- whether we have Net Neutrality. It’s up to the public, and we’re not giving up the fight for a free and open Internet.
The Journal story also implies that President-elect Barack Obama has softened his support for Net Neutrality. Where’s the evidence of that? Oddly, the journal doesn’t actually ask Obama or his transition team to comment.
Obama in the Driver's Seat
We do know this though. The president-elect has made numerous public statements on the campaign trail and published a detailed policy document placing Net Neutrality as his top priority. He’s explicitly opposed paid “quality of service” arrangements and was also a co-sponsor of the Dorgan-Snowe bill that is the strongest Net Neutrality legislation ever proposed.
Contrary to claims of the Journal that Net Neutrality forces are receding, we are actually closer now than ever before to victory. We have arrived at the moment when Net Neutrality has its greatest appeal, clearest need, and best chance of becoming law.
Our opponents will try to divide and distract us. But now is not the time to retreat but to move forward.
= = = =
UPDATE: On Monday, SavetheInternet.com asked its activists to write President-elect Obama and ask him to re-affirm his commitment to Net Neutrality. Later in the day he did. Read the report at "Talking Points Memo."
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Barack's Broadband Roadmap
In a Saturday morning YouTube address, President-elect Barack Obama gave the nation a first glimpse at his administration's stimulus plan - and connecting everyone to the Internet was a main route on his roadmap to economic recovery.
"Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I'm President," he said. "Because that's how we'll strengthen America's competitiveness in the world."
That closing the digital divide ranks so highly on Obama's economic agenda might come as a surprise to some.
But like rural electrification and Interstate highway systems in the 20th century, Internet connectivity should be thought of as infrastructure that will light the way to 21st-century prosperity.
And it is not merely a matter of national pride. Getting more people connected is an issue with life-or-death consequences. Just 24 hours before Obama's speech, the U.S. Labor Department released figures showing an alarming unemployment rate of 6.7 percent. More than 533,000 jobs were lost November alone -- the worst job loss in 34 years.
The Internet could prove to be our path to economic salvation. A 2007 study by the Brookings Institution and MIT found that a one-digit increase in U.S. per-capita broadband penetration equates to an additional American 300,000 jobs. If our broadband penetration were as high as a country like Denmark, for example, we could expect more than 3 million additional jobs in America.
Making Good
In making this pledge to connect everyone, Obama has bravely stepped into an Internet void left by his predecessor. Over the past eight years, the United States has fallen from fourth to 15th in the world in terms of high-speed Internet adoption. More than 40 percent of American homes are not connected to high-speed Internet services.
The Bush administration has been in the habit of making high-minded promises about the Internet while delivering massive handouts to the cable and phone giants who seem more interested in padding profits than building out connections to those who need them most.
In his Saturday address, Obama promised to install computers in classrooms and extend high-speed Internet to under-served areas. These goals echo those expressed by candidate Obama on the trail in 2008 and on his transition Web site www.change.gov.
President Bush made a similar sounding pledge in 2004 without delivering. The challenge for Obama -- and all of us -- is to dig into the details and really get the work done.
Lighting the Way
At Free Press, we have some ideas. Our policy shop just released a guide to media reform for the new administration and Congress, which can help forge a path to a better Internet.
The document calls upon the next Federal Communications Commission to set new speed standards for broadband; collect meaningful data on deployment; transition the Universal Service Fund toward digital infrastructure; and open networks to stimulate broadband competition.
Reforming the ways we allocate spectrum for Internet use is also a centerpiece. New ideas about sharing vacant airwaves and prying open existing networks should be prioritized. With more Americans using cell phones than the Internet, we need to make sure that our evolving mobile experience includes an open Internet as much as possible.
The Free Press document urges the new administration to lay the groundwork in Congress for new telecommunications law that recognizes the growing convergence of communications platforms.
"The existing statutes were designed for a bygone era -- when different services and technologies had different regulatory frameworks," it states. "Now we are in the era ... where virtually all media and communications move on the same digital networks. The law must catch up with technology and the market."
Internet for Everyone
Obama seems to get it more than his predecessor, and his screen-side chat strikes a hopeful note. Sadly, there is still a huge mass of Americans who couldn't get online to hear it.
On the same day of Obama's YouTube pledge, InternetforEveryone.org -- a broad-based initiative to connect every American to a fast, open and affordable Internet -- had its first interactive town hall meeting to address this problem.
Hundreds gathered in Los Angeles to discuss ways to close the digital divide. This discussion will be combined with feedback from upcoming town hall meetings and delivered to the Obama administration and Congress as a tangible plan of action.
Obama is going to need to listen to those beyond the Beltway to best build a better Internet for everyone.
His pledge gives us the chance to have a long overdue public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like. This is where the rubber meets the road on the information superhighway -- and it's Obama's best chance to deliver on his promises of change for millions.
"Here, in the country that invented the Internet, every child should have the chance to get online, and they'll get that chance when I'm President," he said. "Because that's how we'll strengthen America's competitiveness in the world."
That closing the digital divide ranks so highly on Obama's economic agenda might come as a surprise to some.
| Obama: "Every child should have a chance to get online" |
And it is not merely a matter of national pride. Getting more people connected is an issue with life-or-death consequences. Just 24 hours before Obama's speech, the U.S. Labor Department released figures showing an alarming unemployment rate of 6.7 percent. More than 533,000 jobs were lost November alone -- the worst job loss in 34 years.
The Internet could prove to be our path to economic salvation. A 2007 study by the Brookings Institution and MIT found that a one-digit increase in U.S. per-capita broadband penetration equates to an additional American 300,000 jobs. If our broadband penetration were as high as a country like Denmark, for example, we could expect more than 3 million additional jobs in America.
Making Good
In making this pledge to connect everyone, Obama has bravely stepped into an Internet void left by his predecessor. Over the past eight years, the United States has fallen from fourth to 15th in the world in terms of high-speed Internet adoption. More than 40 percent of American homes are not connected to high-speed Internet services.
The Bush administration has been in the habit of making high-minded promises about the Internet while delivering massive handouts to the cable and phone giants who seem more interested in padding profits than building out connections to those who need them most.
In his Saturday address, Obama promised to install computers in classrooms and extend high-speed Internet to under-served areas. These goals echo those expressed by candidate Obama on the trail in 2008 and on his transition Web site www.change.gov.
President Bush made a similar sounding pledge in 2004 without delivering. The challenge for Obama -- and all of us -- is to dig into the details and really get the work done.
Lighting the Way
At Free Press, we have some ideas. Our policy shop just released a guide to media reform for the new administration and Congress, which can help forge a path to a better Internet.
The document calls upon the next Federal Communications Commission to set new speed standards for broadband; collect meaningful data on deployment; transition the Universal Service Fund toward digital infrastructure; and open networks to stimulate broadband competition.
Reforming the ways we allocate spectrum for Internet use is also a centerpiece. New ideas about sharing vacant airwaves and prying open existing networks should be prioritized. With more Americans using cell phones than the Internet, we need to make sure that our evolving mobile experience includes an open Internet as much as possible.
The Free Press document urges the new administration to lay the groundwork in Congress for new telecommunications law that recognizes the growing convergence of communications platforms.
"The existing statutes were designed for a bygone era -- when different services and technologies had different regulatory frameworks," it states. "Now we are in the era ... where virtually all media and communications move on the same digital networks. The law must catch up with technology and the market."
Internet for Everyone
Obama seems to get it more than his predecessor, and his screen-side chat strikes a hopeful note. Sadly, there is still a huge mass of Americans who couldn't get online to hear it.
On the same day of Obama's YouTube pledge, InternetforEveryone.org -- a broad-based initiative to connect every American to a fast, open and affordable Internet -- had its first interactive town hall meeting to address this problem.
Hundreds gathered in Los Angeles to discuss ways to close the digital divide. This discussion will be combined with feedback from upcoming town hall meetings and delivered to the Obama administration and Congress as a tangible plan of action.
Obama is going to need to listen to those beyond the Beltway to best build a better Internet for everyone.
His pledge gives us the chance to have a long overdue public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like. This is where the rubber meets the road on the information superhighway -- and it's Obama's best chance to deliver on his promises of change for millions.
Monday, December 08, 2008
Internet for Everyone -- Los Angeles
Follows are my opening comments for our first InternetforEveryone.org town hall meeting, which occurred on Saturday, December 6 in Los Angeles:
Thank you all for coming in out of the Los Angeles sun today. I grew up in rain-soaked Seattle so seeing this bright, warm city in December is always an inspiration for me.
We’ve invited you here today to join us in an important conversation about the Internet.
It’s a conversation that’s happening at a very exciting time in America.
2008 has been a year of political awakening. A little more than a month ago, on Election Day, millions of people who had not once set foot inside a voting booth showed up.
But it didn’t start there. For many of them, their newfound participation was forged in a new online political arena, one that – for the most part – accepts all comers, welcomes all points of view and turns away no dissent.
The Internet has only been around for a generation, but in that time it’s made possible an amazing transformation in politics – one that’s driven from the bottom up, by the people who come online every day.
What you’re doing here today is a part of this transformation. It’s a transformation in our democracy.
But we’re not here today simply to praise the Internet but to look to those people in the United States who have been left off the grid. New political involvement, economic opportunity and free speech still remain out of reach for millions of them.
We want to learn more about the challenges that they face so we can meet this 21st century problem with a 21st century solution.
Over the past year, InternetforEveryone.org has been building a national coalition of public interest groups, consumer advocates, educators, and political and business leaders.
Through our work together, we have learned one thing: When it comes to the Internet, views are as diverse as the millions of Web sites that are scattered across the network.
Some see the Internet as their opportunity to innovate, imagine and invent. Others need it to connect with family and friends living just next door, or as far away as Vietnam or Argentina.
For 17-year-old Antonio Reyes living in nearby San Fernando Valley it’s a chance to fill out college applications and fulfill his dream of becoming a pediatrician.
But one of the strongest messages that we have heard from all the members of Internet for Everyone is this:
Now, is the right time to take America’s Internet to the next level … to open the doors of Internet opportunity to everyone, and make sure that every child in this nation can get connected.
This Town Hall Meeting serves to respond to this message, to seize upon this historical moment and to advance a very important issue.
OBJECTIVES
This is the first in a series of national InternetforEveryone meetings. The purpose of these meetings is two fold.
First, we need to create a framework for a national broadband plan. This framework will be built on feedback collected from you today and during other meetings happening in the coming months across the country.
It will be delivered to the new Obama administration and Congress in Washington as a people-powered guide to a better Internet.
Our second objective is not only to convey this public vision, but to promote a tangible plan of action.
This is where you come in.
We hope to inspire you today to take actions that will advance the goals of Internet for Everyone. In the room here today, and in the discussions you’re about to have, you’ll find ways to get involved and spread the word.
PRINCIPLES
Before I turn over this meeting to our great facilitator Diane, I’d like to draw your attention to the four principles of Internet for Everyone.
When we began to organize this coalition we settled on these four principles as the building blocks for a better Internet in America.
They are Access, Choice, Openness and Innovation. We describe each in the discussion guides that are at your table and will explore these principles in some detail as we work through today’s agenda.
THANK YOU
Finally, before we start, I just want to thank a few people in the room for helping make today possible.
We’re grateful for the assistance of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications.
We’re also pleased that the Communications Workers of America and that Southern California ACLU are supporters of this meeting. We’re grateful to Congresswoman Maxine Waters from the nearby 35th District who will be joining us to make some remarks later today.
Throughout the day you’ll notice the InternetforEveryone staff who have made this meeting possible. They are supported by a team of volunteers and facilitators, whom you’ll get to know as well.
Their work here has been tremendous.
And most importantly, I’d like to thank you the participants. Thanks for taking the time to participate here, fully.
For my part, I promise that your efforts today will be heard – not just by others in this room but by those newcomers in Washington, D.C., who have promised to deliver on change. Making this a reality is my commitment to you.
Thank you all for coming in out of the Los Angeles sun today. I grew up in rain-soaked Seattle so seeing this bright, warm city in December is always an inspiration for me.
We’ve invited you here today to join us in an important conversation about the Internet.
It’s a conversation that’s happening at a very exciting time in America.
2008 has been a year of political awakening. A little more than a month ago, on Election Day, millions of people who had not once set foot inside a voting booth showed up.
But it didn’t start there. For many of them, their newfound participation was forged in a new online political arena, one that – for the most part – accepts all comers, welcomes all points of view and turns away no dissent.
The Internet has only been around for a generation, but in that time it’s made possible an amazing transformation in politics – one that’s driven from the bottom up, by the people who come online every day.
What you’re doing here today is a part of this transformation. It’s a transformation in our democracy.
But we’re not here today simply to praise the Internet but to look to those people in the United States who have been left off the grid. New political involvement, economic opportunity and free speech still remain out of reach for millions of them.
We want to learn more about the challenges that they face so we can meet this 21st century problem with a 21st century solution.
Over the past year, InternetforEveryone.org has been building a national coalition of public interest groups, consumer advocates, educators, and political and business leaders.
Through our work together, we have learned one thing: When it comes to the Internet, views are as diverse as the millions of Web sites that are scattered across the network.
Some see the Internet as their opportunity to innovate, imagine and invent. Others need it to connect with family and friends living just next door, or as far away as Vietnam or Argentina.
For 17-year-old Antonio Reyes living in nearby San Fernando Valley it’s a chance to fill out college applications and fulfill his dream of becoming a pediatrician.
But one of the strongest messages that we have heard from all the members of Internet for Everyone is this:
Now, is the right time to take America’s Internet to the next level … to open the doors of Internet opportunity to everyone, and make sure that every child in this nation can get connected.
This Town Hall Meeting serves to respond to this message, to seize upon this historical moment and to advance a very important issue.
OBJECTIVES
This is the first in a series of national InternetforEveryone meetings. The purpose of these meetings is two fold.
First, we need to create a framework for a national broadband plan. This framework will be built on feedback collected from you today and during other meetings happening in the coming months across the country.
It will be delivered to the new Obama administration and Congress in Washington as a people-powered guide to a better Internet.
Our second objective is not only to convey this public vision, but to promote a tangible plan of action.
This is where you come in.
We hope to inspire you today to take actions that will advance the goals of Internet for Everyone. In the room here today, and in the discussions you’re about to have, you’ll find ways to get involved and spread the word.
PRINCIPLES
Before I turn over this meeting to our great facilitator Diane, I’d like to draw your attention to the four principles of Internet for Everyone.
When we began to organize this coalition we settled on these four principles as the building blocks for a better Internet in America.
They are Access, Choice, Openness and Innovation. We describe each in the discussion guides that are at your table and will explore these principles in some detail as we work through today’s agenda.
THANK YOU
Finally, before we start, I just want to thank a few people in the room for helping make today possible.
We’re grateful for the assistance of the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School of Communications.
We’re also pleased that the Communications Workers of America and that Southern California ACLU are supporters of this meeting. We’re grateful to Congresswoman Maxine Waters from the nearby 35th District who will be joining us to make some remarks later today.
Throughout the day you’ll notice the InternetforEveryone staff who have made this meeting possible. They are supported by a team of volunteers and facilitators, whom you’ll get to know as well.
Their work here has been tremendous.
And most importantly, I’d like to thank you the participants. Thanks for taking the time to participate here, fully.
For my part, I promise that your efforts today will be heard – not just by others in this room but by those newcomers in Washington, D.C., who have promised to deliver on change. Making this a reality is my commitment to you.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
No Ifs, Ands or Butts, the New FCC Must Focus on Neutrality
The Denver Post today urged a new Federal Communications Commission to get its mind off of "buttocks" and onto more serious issues like Net Neutrality.
The editorial board was referring to a case now before the U.S. Court of Appeals, in which the agency’s top legal minds are trying to determine whether some bare cheeks featured on a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue" warrant indecency fines for ABC.
"This is the place to which the FCC under the Bush administration has brought us," the Post editors write. "We are hopeful that Barack Obama will appoint a new FCC chair with a moderate sensibility and a healthier respect for constitutional issues."
Obama is expected to appoint a new FCC chair at any moment. While there's been a flurry of speculation over his choice, no clear name has emerged from the pack.
Whomever the president-elect picks for the job, the nation's new top media regulator will face more heady concerns than indecency. In 2009, we expect to see new rules protecting Net Neutrality. Other changes under an Obama administration could include reversing runaway media consolidation and stopping pay-for-play news, radio payola and propaganda.
Thousands of people have already identified these as among their priorities for the new Commission, according to an online poll posted on Tuesday.
According to the latest count, these are voters' top four priorities:
To help the new administration navigate the political minefield between campaign promises and legislative reality, Free Press' policy shop just released a presidential road map for media reform.
"Leadership on [Net Neutrality] will settle the question of the future of the open Internet, ending several years of rancorous fighting that pit consumer advocates and tech companies against network owners," according to Free Press. "The Obama administration should move swiftly to put Net Neutrality into the law as a cornerstone of 21st century telecommunications policy."
As for the current FCC's obsession with the occasional flash of indecency, it's time to turn the other cheek and get to more important work ahead.
The editorial board was referring to a case now before the U.S. Court of Appeals, in which the agency’s top legal minds are trying to determine whether some bare cheeks featured on a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue" warrant indecency fines for ABC.
"This is the place to which the FCC under the Bush administration has brought us," the Post editors write. "We are hopeful that Barack Obama will appoint a new FCC chair with a moderate sensibility and a healthier respect for constitutional issues."
| Obama: Net Neutrality will be top concern of my FCC chair |
Whomever the president-elect picks for the job, the nation's new top media regulator will face more heady concerns than indecency. In 2009, we expect to see new rules protecting Net Neutrality. Other changes under an Obama administration could include reversing runaway media consolidation and stopping pay-for-play news, radio payola and propaganda.
Thousands of people have already identified these as among their priorities for the new Commission, according to an online poll posted on Tuesday.
According to the latest count, these are voters' top four priorities:
- Protect an open Internet by enforcing Net Neutrality
- Break up media conglomerates and return stations to local control
- Stop propaganda, fake news and radio payola
- Open more public airwaves to high-speed Internet access
To help the new administration navigate the political minefield between campaign promises and legislative reality, Free Press' policy shop just released a presidential road map for media reform.
"Leadership on [Net Neutrality] will settle the question of the future of the open Internet, ending several years of rancorous fighting that pit consumer advocates and tech companies against network owners," according to Free Press. "The Obama administration should move swiftly to put Net Neutrality into the law as a cornerstone of 21st century telecommunications policy."
As for the current FCC's obsession with the occasional flash of indecency, it's time to turn the other cheek and get to more important work ahead.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Net Neutrality on Deck
There's been heavy traffic over the Net Neutrality wires since the November 4 Election of Barack Hussein Obama, and it's not just because the president-elect was so outspoken in support of the principle while on the campaign trail.
There has been a sea change in Washington since then, as the wonks, tech pundits and lobbyists align themselves with new leadership and the likelihood that Net Neutrality could become law soon.
Holding to His Pledge
Within two days of the election Obama’s transition team laid out his science and technology agenda at www.change.gov, prominently highlighting the work that SavetheInternet.com members have prioritized for more than two years now.
According to the agenda, an Obama administration will hold to its campaign promises and "protect the openness of the Internet."
"A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way," Obama’s agenda states. "Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
Soon thereafter, former Vice President Al Gore told CurrentTV that he was "all for" Net Neutrality.
"I just think that it’s unacceptable to have the folks that control the pipes to get into anything that smacks of controlling the content, or favoring their content over other content," Gore said.
Legislation for 2009
And just yesterday, a top staffer for Sen. Byron Dorgan told the media that the senator plans to introduce Net Neutrality legislation in the new Congress.
"We feel that legislation is definitely necessary," Frannie Wellings, telecom counsel to Dorgan said during a conference in Washington. (Disclosure: Wellings worked at Free Press before joining Dorgan’s staff)
Dorgan is influential as one of the highest-ranking members of the Senate Commerce Committee.
AT&T's New Tune?
Obama, Gore and Dorgan’s support is no surprise. What’s "mind blowing" according to some in the media, is AT&T’s apparent change of heart.
At the same conference, AT&T’s lead policy VP, James Cicconi, said, "There's a lot of people who now believe that companies like AT&T are not plotting to overthrow the open Internet concept."
"It's against AT&T's economic interest to block or slow Internet content, because customers demand an open Internet, he added. "Our core asset is our network," he said. "We get paid for carrying bits."
This is from the same company whose former CEO called all of us "nuts" for wanting to use his “pipes” without paying a special access fee.
"There has been no larger, stauncher opponent of Net Neutrality," a surprised Jason Lee Miller writes about AT&T's recent switch.
"Hasn’t [Cicconi] heard his bosses speak about it?" Miller asks, describing their earlier “desire to discriminate between content providers,” and their willingness to spend tens of millions of dollars on "K" Street firms that "actively lobbied against any such openness."
That was then. This is now.
There has been a sea change in Washington since then, as the wonks, tech pundits and lobbyists align themselves with new leadership and the likelihood that Net Neutrality could become law soon.
Holding to His Pledge
| Obama in the Front Seat |
According to the agenda, an Obama administration will hold to its campaign promises and "protect the openness of the Internet."
"A key reason the Internet has been such a success is because it is the most open network in history. It needs to stay that way," Obama’s agenda states. "Barack Obama strongly supports the principle of network neutrality to preserve the benefits of open competition on the Internet."
Soon thereafter, former Vice President Al Gore told CurrentTV that he was "all for" Net Neutrality.
| Gore 'All For' It |
Legislation for 2009
And just yesterday, a top staffer for Sen. Byron Dorgan told the media that the senator plans to introduce Net Neutrality legislation in the new Congress.
"We feel that legislation is definitely necessary," Frannie Wellings, telecom counsel to Dorgan said during a conference in Washington. (Disclosure: Wellings worked at Free Press before joining Dorgan’s staff)
Dorgan is influential as one of the highest-ranking members of the Senate Commerce Committee.
AT&T's New Tune?
Obama, Gore and Dorgan’s support is no surprise. What’s "mind blowing" according to some in the media, is AT&T’s apparent change of heart.
At the same conference, AT&T’s lead policy VP, James Cicconi, said, "There's a lot of people who now believe that companies like AT&T are not plotting to overthrow the open Internet concept."
"It's against AT&T's economic interest to block or slow Internet content, because customers demand an open Internet, he added. "Our core asset is our network," he said. "We get paid for carrying bits."
This is from the same company whose former CEO called all of us "nuts" for wanting to use his “pipes” without paying a special access fee.
"There has been no larger, stauncher opponent of Net Neutrality," a surprised Jason Lee Miller writes about AT&T's recent switch.
"Hasn’t [Cicconi] heard his bosses speak about it?" Miller asks, describing their earlier “desire to discriminate between content providers,” and their willingness to spend tens of millions of dollars on "K" Street firms that "actively lobbied against any such openness."
That was then. This is now.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Other Vote -- Victory at the FCC
Big Win for an Open Internet |
Woot!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
NAB Goes Back to the Future
As the fight over "white spaces" heats up, the technophobes at the National Association of Broadcasters are clinging to outdated scare tactics to protect us from the monsters of innovation.
Stirring up fears about technological advances is a well-worn page in the broadcasters’ playbook. The NAB opposed satellite radio, cable TV, and even the VCR when they were first introduced, calling them a threat to the future of over-the-air television.
Well the future has arrived once again. This time it's in the form of a technology that uses vacant airwaves to connect millions of people to high-speed Internet services.
White spaces technology works, as evidenced by an exhaustive study by FCC engineers. It can be used without interfering with television signals, they concluded. But don't tell that to the NAB. They'd rather Washington gave in to their extravagant tales about creatures and ghouls determined to kill your TV.
Sound familiar? In 1974, the NAB attempted to frighten us away from cable television with a PSA that's was as over the top then as are their claims about white spaces today. (play the clip above)
It didn't work in 1974. Hopefully, the FCC will learn from the past and dismiss the NAB's latest round of fear mongering as yet another bad TV rerun.
Be Very Afraid |
Well the future has arrived once again. This time it's in the form of a technology that uses vacant airwaves to connect millions of people to high-speed Internet services.
White spaces technology works, as evidenced by an exhaustive study by FCC engineers. It can be used without interfering with television signals, they concluded. But don't tell that to the NAB. They'd rather Washington gave in to their extravagant tales about creatures and ghouls determined to kill your TV.
Sound familiar? In 1974, the NAB attempted to frighten us away from cable television with a PSA that's was as over the top then as are their claims about white spaces today. (play the clip above)
It didn't work in 1974. Hopefully, the FCC will learn from the past and dismiss the NAB's latest round of fear mongering as yet another bad TV rerun.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Debates Still No Place for Average Joes
Joe the Plumber may have played a role in last night's debate, but average "Janes" and "Joes" were left on the sidelines.
As the lights dimmed on the fourth and final debate of the 2008 season, one thing has become clear: These types of debates are vestiges of a bygone TV era. Tightly scripted formats and media middlemen aren't what public discourse should look like in the age of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
With the digital world at our fingertips, we the people have come to expect a seat at the table. The Commission on Presidential Debates -- the party-controlled organization that dictates debate formats -- remains reluctant, however, to offer up a chair.
Plumbing the Internet
The candidates clearly struggled last night to strike a common chord with stories of Joe, a real-life plumber from Holland, Ohio. But in their efforts to evoke him, Joe came across as little more than a middle-class caricature propped up for their rhetorical benefit.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of other "Joes" were submitting debate questions to Google's "moderator," Twittering about the debates at "Hack the Debates" and rating the media's performance at RatetheDebates.org.
The spirit of democratic discourse was thriving on the Web's rough and tumble social networks, in spite of the canned speeches being delivered at the same time over the mainstream networks.
"Four years from now, the public's use of the Internet to connect with each other and organize around like-minded interests will force the candidates and the debate commission to significantly abandon the limited format of televised debates," said Andrew Rasiej, founder of the Personal Democracy Forum.
Rasiej, along with a bipartisan coalition of organizations, is urging people to abandon the debate commission's model and move away from "the scarcity model constraints of TV" toward the open abundance model of the Internet.
People Aren't Props
Over at RatetheDebates.org many of the 2,700 citizen "raters" thought last night's moderator, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer did a decent job -- but he didn't do enough to challenge the candidates' spin. More than 64% of McCain's supporters and 58% of Obama's supporters said he needed to hold the candidates accountable when they didn't tell the truth.
This concern has been consistent in prior debates with many raters reporting that the debate format limited the public's ability to engage in the discussion, while not allowing enough leeway for a departure from scripted answers.
"I'm not really sure that it is necessary to have an audience at all, since they weren't allowed to talk and had to remain neutral," said one rater. "Why have people there at all? We only see them as the candidates walk in."
"I would like for the audience to be able to respond by clapping when they agree with the candidate's position," responded another. "It makes debates much more lively."
"Questions should be drawn from a pool that are submitted and voted upon by citizens either online or by other means," another citizen wrote. "This would achieve a closer approximation to what people really want to know without filtering."
Several other panelists called for instant fact-checking of answers so candidates could not take advantage of the format to spin issues and avoid real answers. "We should have fact-checkers going during the debate so we know when one candidate is lying," suggested one. "The average American does not have the time to fact check everything the senators say."
Learning from Twitter
Last week's town hall format with Tom Brokaw was supposed to put the public front and center. But Brokaw only selected a handful of questions from more than 6 million e-mail and Internet submissions.
Rules set forth in a 31-page memo drafted by the campaigns and agreed to by the debate commission prevented questioners in the studio audience from asking follow-up questions or even showing emotion. Their microphones were cut immediately after their questions were asked and the cameras weren't even allowed to focus on their faces as the candidates responded.
One rater from the Oct. 7 debate said that it's not a town hall meeting "if the 'town hall' is not allowed to participate in the conversation other than by reading prepared questions."
With luck, 2008 will be the last year that the Commission on Presidential Debates gets to set the rules of the road. Voters are already joining forces online to demand interactions with the candidates that are more democratic, transparent and accountable to the public.
It's time the networks, parties and their co-conspirators at the commission followed our lead -- or got out of our way.
As the lights dimmed on the fourth and final debate of the 2008 season, one thing has become clear: These types of debates are vestiges of a bygone TV era. Tightly scripted formats and media middlemen aren't what public discourse should look like in the age of YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.
With the digital world at our fingertips, we the people have come to expect a seat at the table. The Commission on Presidential Debates -- the party-controlled organization that dictates debate formats -- remains reluctant, however, to offer up a chair.
Plumbing the Internet
The candidates clearly struggled last night to strike a common chord with stories of Joe, a real-life plumber from Holland, Ohio. But in their efforts to evoke him, Joe came across as little more than a middle-class caricature propped up for their rhetorical benefit.
Meanwhile, tens of thousands of other "Joes" were submitting debate questions to Google's "moderator," Twittering about the debates at "Hack the Debates" and rating the media's performance at RatetheDebates.org.
The spirit of democratic discourse was thriving on the Web's rough and tumble social networks, in spite of the canned speeches being delivered at the same time over the mainstream networks.
"Four years from now, the public's use of the Internet to connect with each other and organize around like-minded interests will force the candidates and the debate commission to significantly abandon the limited format of televised debates," said Andrew Rasiej, founder of the Personal Democracy Forum.
Rasiej, along with a bipartisan coalition of organizations, is urging people to abandon the debate commission's model and move away from "the scarcity model constraints of TV" toward the open abundance model of the Internet.
People Aren't Props
Over at RatetheDebates.org many of the 2,700 citizen "raters" thought last night's moderator, CBS anchor Bob Schieffer did a decent job -- but he didn't do enough to challenge the candidates' spin. More than 64% of McCain's supporters and 58% of Obama's supporters said he needed to hold the candidates accountable when they didn't tell the truth.
This concern has been consistent in prior debates with many raters reporting that the debate format limited the public's ability to engage in the discussion, while not allowing enough leeway for a departure from scripted answers.
"I'm not really sure that it is necessary to have an audience at all, since they weren't allowed to talk and had to remain neutral," said one rater. "Why have people there at all? We only see them as the candidates walk in."
"I would like for the audience to be able to respond by clapping when they agree with the candidate's position," responded another. "It makes debates much more lively."
"Questions should be drawn from a pool that are submitted and voted upon by citizens either online or by other means," another citizen wrote. "This would achieve a closer approximation to what people really want to know without filtering."
Several other panelists called for instant fact-checking of answers so candidates could not take advantage of the format to spin issues and avoid real answers. "We should have fact-checkers going during the debate so we know when one candidate is lying," suggested one. "The average American does not have the time to fact check everything the senators say."
Learning from Twitter
Last week's town hall format with Tom Brokaw was supposed to put the public front and center. But Brokaw only selected a handful of questions from more than 6 million e-mail and Internet submissions.
Rules set forth in a 31-page memo drafted by the campaigns and agreed to by the debate commission prevented questioners in the studio audience from asking follow-up questions or even showing emotion. Their microphones were cut immediately after their questions were asked and the cameras weren't even allowed to focus on their faces as the candidates responded.
One rater from the Oct. 7 debate said that it's not a town hall meeting "if the 'town hall' is not allowed to participate in the conversation other than by reading prepared questions."
With luck, 2008 will be the last year that the Commission on Presidential Debates gets to set the rules of the road. Voters are already joining forces online to demand interactions with the candidates that are more democratic, transparent and accountable to the public.
It's time the networks, parties and their co-conspirators at the commission followed our lead -- or got out of our way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)