Monday, May 24, 2010

50 Tweets for #NetNeutrality

Please pick, chose and retweet. Or tweet your own:

  1. Historical view on how the Internet is "telecommunications" and why carriers shouldn't muck w/content http://twurl.nl/cyq3zw #NetNeutrality

  1. Beck's war on the FCC (and Satan worshippers) Do his followers know they're just being "entertained?" http://twurl.nl/7pa11k #NetNeutrality

  1. NYT: Right-wing talking points against #NetNeutrality are colorful but wrong. Oversight is needed: http://twurl.nl/n5w8kf

  1. Cenk on how Fox News spins the astroturf line about #NetNeutralityas a "government takeover" http://twurl.nl/sr6kw5 #mediafail #p2

  1. Comcast and Verizon execs agree: #FCC Title II plan won’t impact network investment http://twurl.nl/jcf7mm #NetNeutrality

  1. James Rucker (@ColorofChange) explains how Web openness & access are intertwined and vital http://twurl.nl/jhcrga #NetNeutrality

  1. Telco astroturf wouldn't spend $1.4m if they weren’t scared and they’re scared of 2mn people demanding #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/q0zvj4

  1. "When all else fails, launch a scare campaign" http://twurl.nl/r0bdev #NetNeutrality #astroturf

  1. Rep. Cliff Stearns introduces anti-#NetNeutrality bill. And his biggest corporate contributor is ... http://twurl.nl/ahpvp4

  1. GigaOm: "For those who want to check out telecom. lobby & agenda in bill form, read Stearns’ leg." http://twurl.nl/2j0vh6 #NetNeutrality

  1. Meanwhile at Fox, @GlennBeck links GE, NBC and @FreePress in vast conspiracy to take over the Web http://twurl.nl/phblpy #p2

  1. Net Neutrality: The sum of all irrational fears: http://twurl.nl/sqhmsq #NetNeutrality #FCC

  1. Would @GlennBeck hate #NetNeutrality as much, if he actually knew what it was? One can only wonder. http://twurl.nl/sqhmsq

  1. Sen Dorgan & Com Copps: #FCC should move w/Internet speed to guarantee #NetNeutrality essential to dynamic democracy http://twurl.nl/wg0r56

  1. Can you feel the power of the netroots. 2 million for #NetNeutrality. 250,000 for Title II www.savetheinternet.com

  1. The nerdfighters chime in for #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/sjy5pb Geeks do rule!

  1. AT&T (and friends) are still hard at work making up #NetNeutrality job loss figures http://twurl.nl/2b80t7 (via @mmasnick)

  1. LA Times: FCC needs to step up regulation of Internet broadband service http://twurl.nl/y18x0d #NetNeutrality

  1. Do the numbers add up? A closer look at controversial study that suggests #NetNeutrality costs jobs http://twurl.nl/8efd2a

  1. Why media reform matters right now? Two must watch videoshttp://twurl.nl/vatda5 #NetNeutrality #SavetheNews

  1. The Christian Coalition takes on Glenn Beck: #NetNeutrality is not some Marxist plot: http://twurl.nl/kw6vif #p2 #tcot

  1. Extremists distort the #NetNeutrality issue as part of a secretly "coordinated attack" to censor people http://twurl.nl/mbdukn

  1. Rep. Markey makes plea for reclassifying broadband; joins 250,000 other people who have urged the same #NetNeutrality http://bit.ly/cLAIBP

  1. Washington Post: #NetNeutrality not a government plot. It's about ensuring your ISP can't limit what you do online http://twurl.nl/gz3wtg

  1. Tim Wu: Net Neutrality is not dead. The FCC just needs to fix Bush-era mistakes: http://twurl.nl/jpsi7f #NetNeutrality #fcc

  1. Watch the Pulitzer Center interview on how #NetNeutrality protects free speech and new journalism on the Web: http://twurl.nl/p86x4w

  1. Join the ColorofChange action in support of #NetNeutrality http://www.colorofchange.org/opennet/ (pls sign and RT)

  1. Why Net Neutrality is too important to leave up to ISPs (via @gigaom) #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/a3fbsg

  1. Two venture capitalists on #NetNeutrality. If we lose it, we lose companies to invest in http://twurl.nl/ho4w2k http://twurl.nl/588uqm

  1. Libraries understand that #NetNeutrality is essential: http://twurl.nl/keq8qh

  1. AT&T sees Net access as scarce commodity to be rationed and filtered at spiraling costs http://twurl.nl/y3jrha #NetNeutrality

  1. How Christian Coalition, MoveOn (and other strange bedfellows) helped Save the Internet together http://twurl.nl/gcvlg2 #NetNeutrality

  1. #FCC Commissioner M. Clyburn not neutral on #NetNeutrality: http://twurl.nl/rmw64n

  1. Experts warn of an ISP-controlled Internet w/o #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/kbfi7k

  1. Harvard survey finds open access and #NetNeutrality vital to competition, universal access, low prices & high speeds http://twurl.nl/y3smg2

  1. James Rucker of @colorofchange makes the case, again, for civil rights community to support #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/aczwj4

  1. Close America's broadband gap? The phone and cable giants just say 'No' http://twurl.nl/8z3eow #NetNeutrality #DigitalDivide

  1. Tea Party conservatives show support for #NetNeutrality: http://twurl.nl/ktexh4 Good to see right and left agreeing on some things.

  1. Another telco talking point against #NetNeutrality (That it costs jobs) proven false http://twurl.nl/e28ncr

  1. VIDEO: President Obama hits it out of the park for #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/g7rr4t (pls rt)

  1. Why are some civil rights groups are on the wrong side of Net Neutrality? http://twurl.nl/ti6fd7 via @colorofchange #NetNeutrality

  1. Why Media and Journalism Scholars Support Net Neutrality http://bit.ly/9SQu2E #NetNeutrality

  1. #FCC Commissioner Clyburn says #NetNeutrality is in best interest of people of color – and all Americans: http://bit.ly/5gO8Kg

  1. The conservative case for #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/71v1b1

  1. Gamers warn of "balkanized" Internet. Call for #NetNeutrality protections: http://twurl.nl/xhdwtj

  1. #NetNeutrality is a “matter of freedom of communication... This should be a basic right of citizenship” http://twurl.nl/oqib7g

  1. NYU economists: #NetNeutrality fuels an open dynamic that “creates billions of dollars in value for American public” http://twurl.nl/b3hj2e

  1. Making the case that #NetNeutrality fuels economic prosperity: http://twurl.nl/wkf3sj

  1. I trust that the more than 30K gamers who've signed letters in support of #NetNeutrality http://twurl.nl/28xc6t Whom do you trust?

  1. Rush gets #NetNeutrality. It's when Google and Obama take over your "Rush Limbaugh" search results. Yes sirree http://twurl.nl/ssg00z

Monday, May 17, 2010

Fox Goes Wall to Wall on Tiara-gate

The supposed controversy surrounding Sunday Night's crowning of Miss America was made to order for Fox News Channel. What better than a story that mixes the Network's love of beauty queens with its penchant for stirring up right-wing anger over issues like gay marriage and immigration.

Over the air and on the web, Fox devoted much of its coverage to questioning whether Miss Oklahoma was "sandbagged" by the liberal elite for her support of Arizona's anti-immigration law. Bumped from the front page of FoxNews.com: any mention of the BP oil spill in the Gulf, new information on the attempted Time Square bombing and coverage of the Supreme Court nomination.

The messages behind those news items are perhaps too nuanced for Roger Ailes, who seems to prefer his reporting wrapped in a political message and sprinkled with conspiracy.

It also helps to have women in bikinis.

Friday, May 07, 2010

Net Neutrality: The Sum of All Irrational Fears

Would the right’s lunatic fringe hate Net Neutrality so much, if they actually knew what it was? One can only wonder.

'They will control you' -- Glenn Beck on his radio show:
We’re not going to lose this country we are losing this country. I don’t think people understand how close we are today. Today the FCC is going to turn the Internet into a public utility, which means they have the power to control and regulate every bit of it.

They just were told by a court that they cannot have Net Neutrality. They said: “Fine we can’t do it that way. We will make it a public utility.” This will control every aspect of the Internet. And if you don’t think that people who praise Chavez and his revolution as an important democratic revolution will control every aspect of this Internet.

Mark my words. Listen to this carefully. It’s not going to happen today. It’s not going to happen in the next couple of weeks. It may not even happen in the next year. But it will happen. They’ve opened the door and your rights to speak out, put things out on the Internet, to express yourselves on a blog, to be able to make a political video … gone!

With this administration and, you know what, any progressive – even Republican – administration – they will limit your speech on the Internet and control it.If you think we could lose our rights, if you think we could lose our country, you’re mistaken. We are losing our country.
'A Neo-Marxist vision' -- Neil Stevens at RedState.com:
Part of Google’s drive has been in funding Free Press, a radical fringe group dedicated to the nationalization of all mass media in America.

Their neo-Marxist vision is to have people’s state commissars dictating all the news you read in the newspaper, watch on television, and see on the Internet. Obviously, they’ve been pushing hard for deem-and-pass “reclassification” of the Internet under FCC total control.

A 'Nucllear Option' -- Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity on Fox News:
With today’s announcement the FCC shows it is more interested in satisfying a left-wing political constituency than continuing sound policy...

Free Press put out a statement yesterday just minutes after the story leaked that the FCC would pursue reclassification. Remarkably, they openly stated that even the nuclear option of total regulatory control under a utility-type model is not enough for them, saying: “This is extremely welcome news. We reserve judgment, however, on whether the FCC has gone far enough.”
'Another Obama Takeover' -- House Republican Leader John Boehner on Twitter, twice:
“Obama FCC scheme would reclassify internet as a phone system in order to expand gov't power.”

“FCC plan to regulate internet will stifle innovation, kill jobs. Another gov't takeover by President Obama.”

Sunday, April 25, 2010

Why Reform Right Now: Two Must Watch Videos

Two recent videos make a clear cut case for media reform in the digital age, and should be fixtures on the virtual shelf of anyone interested in the issue.

They help cut through the misinformation, astroturf and name calling being churned out by the phone and cable lobby.

If you're still on the fence about Net Neutrality, watch these.

The first, an April 12 presentation by Harvard Law Professor Larry Lessig, walks us through the history of America's broadband downfall, laying blame at the feet of Bush-era FCC commissioners, who closed rank with companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to make a series of decisions that undermined users' control of our Internet experience.

The second, an interview between FCC Commissioner Michael Copps and PBS host Bill Moyers, looks to the future of American media and the vital role we all need to play to take back the Internet and keep communications as open and small "d" democratic as possible.

Let me know what you think:



Wednesday, March 17, 2010

A Man. A Plan. A Problem. The Internet.

Judging from the back-slapping and high fives over at the FCC, you’d think that America’s Internet was sailing smoothly into the future. Think again.

With much fanfare on Tuesday, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski delivered the National Broadband Plan to Congress, saying it will help make Internet access faster and cheaper for everyone in the United States. Getting more people connected to high-speed Internet -- from the 65 percent currently online up to 90 percent of households by the year 2020 -- is Job One, according to Genachowski.

There are a lot of good things in the plan’s 376 pages, including pledges to reform the Universal Service Fund and to re-allocate spectrum for broadband. But the plan glosses over some of thorniest problems plaguing U.S. Internet users: high prices, slow speeds and a lack of choices among providers.

Internet access in America is held captive by powerful phone and cable interests. And regardless of what the laissez-faire editors at the Wall Street Journal think, doing nothing to protect people from getting ripped off is not an option.

Genachowski has said that affordable Internet access is the nation’s sure path to more jobs, economic prosperity, democratic participation and global competitiveness.

The plan is meant as a blueprint for FCC and congressional action to address these challenges. But it has left many of the details for later, and that’s where devils lurk.

Here’s where things currently stand:
Few Choices: High-speed Internet users suffer from a lack of choice in the marketplace. According to data in the plan, 5 percent of households have no wireline providers; 13 percent of households have one, and 78 percent have just two wireline providers. In other words, 96 percent of the country has two or fewer choices for wired broadband.

Slow Speeds: Americans are paying a whole lot more and getting a whole lot less of the Internet speeds that we deserve. U.S. broadband speeds average about 4 to 5 megabits per second (Mbps) when downloading and 1 Mbps when uploading. That’s a fraction of the download speeds available to users in other countries. For example, Japanese internet users accustomed to surfing the Web at speeds of 100 Mbps at the same prices Americans pay for access to the slow lane. In Hong Kong, one provider now offers a 100 Mbps connection for $13 a month.

High Prices: Americans are at the mercy of cable and phone companies that continually jack up Internet prices simply because they can get away with it. A 2009 study by the Pew Internet and American Life project found that where there are fewer choices for broadband, prices skyrocket. A comparative global study by Harvard’s Berkman Center bears this out: The faster speeds get in America, the fewer options people have and the more expensive they become.
And it’s about to get worse. Comcast and Time Warner Cable just announced price increases; and Verizon and AT&T are flirting with an Internet metering model, which will force you to pay through the nose if you use the Internet for more than just basic e-mail and Web surfing.

The elephant in the room? The FCC plan does not propose the kind of tough measures necessary to create competition and realize President Obama’s vision of universal, fast, affordable Internet.

This lack of competition goes a long way toward explaining how the United States has become a broadband backwater – falling further behind other countries in every measure of Internet success.

It also explains how ISPs earn obscene profit margins from broadband services in uncompetitive markets. Craig Moffett, an industry analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., noted that the margin for Comcast's broadband service is on the order of 80 percent. In other words, Comcast charges customers $40 for something that costs the company $8 to supply.

Taking on the Incumbents

“It’s very important now that we move to action,” Chairman Genachowski said during a press conference on Tuesday. “You’ll be seeing a lot of action at the FCC in the weeks and months ahead.”

To connect every American to a world-class broadband network, we need more than FCC benchmarks; we need to confront the market power or the phone and cable company’s head on.

This is an immense task. The FCC and Congress must muster the courage to stand up to the narrow corporate interests that control prices, speeds and access for the vast majority of Americans.

Proposals are on the table that would open markets where few choices exist. They include calls for open access to increase competition, and Net Neutrality to protect the Internet’s fundamental openness.

Getting these reforms in place is going to be hard-going in Washington, where the phone and cable lobby still dictate policy. On these and many other key issues in the plan, the FCC has deferred the fight with industry for now.

But that fight is inevitable, and the sooner we have it the better.

Without public support and bold leadership from the FCC and Congress, the National Broadband Plan could end up skirting the biggest problems standing between Americans and a better future: entrenched phone and cable companies.

Thursday, March 11, 2010

America's Communications Breakdown

Too often in Washington, words speak louder than actions. Tuesday, however, was not one of those times.

As lobbyists for the largest Internet providers gushed over a National Broadband Plan designed to deliver fast and affordable Internet services to Americans who are currently priced out of the market, one of the largest providers, Comcast, informed customers that it planned to raise its rates even higher.

For those in Comcast's service area, the news couldn't have come at a worse time. Some 35 percent of the country is still stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide. Their main obstacle to access is cost. Surveys by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, the Federal Communications Commission and others find that most of those without broadband say "the price would have to fall" before they can afford to connect.

But Comcast won't go there. Instead, the cable giant opted to jack up rates for access to all of its broadband services, including prices for its most basic offerings.

Inclusion Illusion

But don't let that news stop Comcast's top lobbyists from talking a good game about digital inclusion.

"Getting more Americans connected to broadband -- it's a critical goal that we should all support," Joe Waz, Comcast's Senior VP of External Affairs, wrote late last year. The FCC's national broadband plan is a "real blueprint for how we address the nation's true broadband priorities," he added in January.

Still, the company seems unwilling to explain the rationale for its latest price increase.

Landel Hobbs, the chief operating officer for Time Warner Cable, offers his perspective. During a meeting with investors, Hobbs said his company can raise broadband prices simply because it can get away with it: "Consumers like it so much that we have the ability to increase pricing around high-speed data."

Not quite. It's not that consumers like pricey cable services like Comcast and Time Warner Cable; it's because they have few to no other choices in the marketplace.

Market Failure

There are 11 major Internet service providers in America (companies with more than a million customers), according to market research by ISP Planet. But those numbers can be deceiving. Most communities that have high-speed Internet access are only served by one cable and one telephone company. A significant number of rural communities lack any broadband options. And alternatives to phone and cable, like wireless Internet and broadband transmitted over power lines, still fail to offer viable competition.

All told, this phone and cable duopoly controls more than 95 percent of broadband connections to the home in the United States. Americans have few choices but to pay far too much for Internet connections that are much slower than what's available to consumers in developed countries in Europe and Asia.

Spiraling broadband prices are a key indicator of this marketplace breakdown. While the costs for providing connections to homes are declining, Internet providers keep hiking their rates. It's an arrangement that benefits local cable monopolies well, while emptying customers' wallets.

As a result, cable operators' record obscene profit margins. Craig Moffett, an industry analyst for Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., noted that the margin for Comcast's broadband service is on the order of 80 percent. In other words, Comcast charges customers $40 for something that costs the company $8 to supply.

Highway Robbery

On Wednesday, FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn said in a statement that price increases like those announced by Comcast are "an issue we must examine closely going forward."

"Just as we are in the process of proposing steps to ensure that more people are comfortable signing up for broadband service, providers of that very service are raising prices," Clyburn said. "Across-the-board price increases, especially on those who can least afford it, should raise a red flag for the Commission."

This is a good sign. The FCC has long avoided confronting the competition problem, leaving American consumers at the mercy of phone and cable executives whose only interest is in overcharging customers to boost their margins.

The resulting competition failures are why America continues to lag our global counterparts in every measure of broadband success.

"We hope that the FCC follows Commissioner Clyburn's lead and confronts these issues directly," Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott said in a statement. "American consumers need the market to work for them, not against them."

The public will take the industry's rhetoric about closing the digital divide more seriously when it walks its own talk.

Friday, February 26, 2010

Shills Among Us? Just Say PShAW

The great thing about the open Internet is that it makes room for amazing sites like, well, this one.

The Huffington Post has been successful because it has opened its platform for public debate on issues that are too often ignored by traditional media.

And with its largely open publishing platform, it's become a home for people seeking an alternative to the mainstream mouthpieces that dominate news and commentary on the networks -- giving us the freedom to publish whenever we want.

It's been truly invaluable in the efforts of people, including me and my colleagues at Free Press, who are waging a fight to preserve Net Neutrality -- the principle that protects the free-flowing Web. It's allowed us to use the Internet to save the Internet, and find a broad audience of readers and followers who aren't hearing crucial media policy debates in the mainstream media.

Because the Huffington Post has been so successful in circumventing traditional media gatekeepers, a lot of people want to get in on it -- including the gatekeepers themselves.

Shill-A-Mongus

As the fight for Net Neutrality heats up again in Washington, Huffington Post has been infiltrated by a handful of shills attacking the open Internet and disparaging reform efforts by groups like ours.

That's the beauty of the Internet, right? But the problem is that these folks aren't telling the full story. They often neglect to mention in their bios -- alongside their old jobs in government, their innocuous-sounding organizations, or their academic credentials -- that they are being paid by powerful phone and cable companies seeking to kill Net Neutrality.

This technique is classic "astroturf" -- the fake grassroots -- a time-honored but nauseating tradition in Washington, where PR consultants hire themselves out to the highest bidders with a guarantee to generate friendly press for any agenda.

Their overarching goal in the case of the open Internet is to put the genie back in the bottle ... so traditional media gatekeepers can regain control over Web content.

They're now taking advantage of the open nature of the Huffington Post to pass themselves off as impartial observers. And in one case, they appear to have blocked comments from readers who might want to question their motivations. The only way you'd know about their ulterior motives is if you dig deep into their Web sites or watch them closely every day.

You don't have time for that. But I do.

Just say 'PShAW'

So with this post, I'm announcing the formation of the (unofficial) Post Shill and Astroturf Watch, or PShAW for short, which will shine a light on the shills, flacks and other fakers who are trying to pull one over on you.

Here at PShAW, we're all for disagreement and debate. But we also believe in full disclosure. So in that spirit, let me be clear that neither Free Press, PShAW, nor I take a dime from any businesses, media and telecom industry groups, political parties or the government.

The individuals below can't say the same. But, of course, I encourage you to follow the links below and judge for yourself. While you're at it, you might want to visit their posts and add a comment. If they won't publish it, please share it in the comments below.

Also to be clear, PShAW is unoficial -- not a sanctioned Huffington Post project but something bubbling up from below, among readers and contributors who respect the Huffington Post and want to keep it deception free.

Now, onto our first installment:

Bret Swanson: Swanson is so convinced of his argument against Net Neutrality that he appears to have prohibited reader comments on his post. Such bravery comes courtesy of Arts + Labs, an AT&T-funded front group that funds digitalsociety.org, where Swanson is a "Fellow." Prior to his current gig, Swanson was a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, best known for it's assault on scientific reasoning to discredit Darwin. The loosey goosey logic behind Swanson's shilling on Huffington Post was decimated on Friday by DSLReports.com.

Michael Turk: Turk is a colleague of Swanson's at the industry funded digitalsociety.org. Turk cut his teeth running "grassroots campaigns" for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which lobbies on behalf of the nation's largest cable companies. He also worked as a technology consultant for Grassroots Enterprise -- a D.C. astroturf shop that lists the cable lobby among its premiere clients. Turk also fails to disclose that he's is a principle in a new PR firm -- called Craft Media Digital -- which lists arch-Net Neutrality foe the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as a client.

Patrick Maines: Maines will tell you that he's the president of the Media Institute. He won't tell you, however, that in that capacity he's simply a hired gun for Verizon, AT&T, Viacom, Clear Channel Communications, Time Warner Inc, News Corp and other media giants who make up the Institute's esteemed board of trustees. This explains his efforts on Huffington Post to take down anyone who threatens the nation's media oligarchy ... in this case, insulting the millions of people who support more diverse public media and open Internet.

Robert Atkinson: As president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, Atkinson can be counted on to discredit efforts to protect an open Internet and create more market competition. What he's reluctant to say though is that his Institute is funded by telecommunications companies, which probably explains his preference for spending your tax dollars on a massive giveaway to the biggest phone and cable companies -- with zero accountability.

I know the good people at Huffington Post don't mean to pull a fast one on their legions of loyal readers. But they can always use a hand from the community. So the next time one of these travelers crosses your radar on Huffington Post say "PShAW," call them out in their comments (if they let you), and stay tuned to the (unofficial) Post Shill and Astroturf Watch for reports on the latest hack job.

-- Timothy Karr is the campaign director for Free Press, the nation's largest media reform group. Free Press accepts no funding from businesses, industry groups, political parties or the government.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

When Corporate Shills Attack

The Huffington Post just published an attack on Free Press from Patrick Maines, the president of a corporate front group called the Media Institute.

The Institute's sole purpose seems to be to take down anyone who threatens the nation’s media oligarchy ... in this case, cutting down people who support more diverse public media and a more open Internet.

Maines
Maines: Keeping us safe from "paleoleftists"
In his Huffington Post bio Maines claims to promote a strong First Amendment. However, he doesn't tell readers that he's a hired gun for Verizon, AT&T, Viacom, Clear Channel Communications, Time Warner Inc, News Corp and other media giants.

When I wrote a reply pointing out the corporate link above, it was deleted. I have re-submitted the comment four times and it has been deleted four times.

Apparently, Maines, who professes to love the First Amendment, thinks free speech is good for only the companies that sign his paycheck, and not people like you and me.

Now he's turned to red-baiting to spread the gospel of mainstream media. This from his article:
Free Press is the absurd name of a paleoleftist organization that sees government influence over the media as a way to advance its larger political views, a point made both explicitly and inadvertently in the published opinions of the group's founder and Maximum Leader, Professor Robert McChesney. Free Press … coins amusingly infantile slogans like "Net neutrality: the First Amendment of the Internet."
Free Press is a regular target of the corporate-funded right on sites like BigGovernment.com, cable shows like Glenn Beck, and by astroturf groups like Americans for Prosperity.

But it’s particularly disturbing now to see the same types pedaling their junk on Huffington Post.

I have written for Huffington for several years and still do, gratefully. When I write something for Arianna, I do so with the understanding that, while readers may not agree with me, they will know that I come by my opinions honestly, that I am not working some hidden agenda. (Free Press doesn’t accept a dime from industry, industry groups, government or political parties.)

I respect Huffington Post for building a home for many of us who seek an alternative to the mainstream mouthpieces that dominate news and commentary. But they do not, unfortunately, require the kind of disclosure I'd like to see regarding a new crop of contributors who are using the site to push corporate agendas. I'm hoping that will change soon.

It may look from a distance that "independent" groups are calling those of us who believe in media reform and an open Internet "paleoleftists" and socialists, it's just the same fear-mongering groups that attack Progressives all the time -- whether we're advocating health care reform, labor rights or curbs to carbon emissions.

I'm not asking Huffington to block voices with whom I disagree. But there should be more clarity when featuring content that has been bought and paid for by powerful corporations seeking to defeat reform.

Saturday, January 09, 2010

AT&T Consultant Conjures ‘Evidence’ that Obama is Cooling on Net Neutrality

There’s some buzz about a recent CNET article by Larry Downes claiming that the Obama administration is backing away from Net Neutrality.

Downes knits together a loose set of assumptions to make this case. And the usual suspects have amplified his argument as proof indisputable that Net Neutrality advocates are on the ropes.

It took Nancy Scola of The American Prospect to dig up dirt on Downes that CNET failed to disclose:
"[M]issing from Downes' scary op-ed on the Obama Administration's commitment to net neutrality: any mention that one of Downes' recent clients at the consulting firm Bell Mason Group is AT&T -- one of neutrality regulation's strongest opponents."
CNET, however, does list Downes as a "fellow at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society."

Too many "scholars" live this sort of double life -- trading on academic credentials to lay a gloss of credibility over their telco-friendly arguments. It's up to news orgs (ahem… CNET) to disclose both sides of their personalities.

But let's put that aside for the moment and weigh Downes' case for what it's worth.

Open Internet = Real Recovery

Phone and cable company spokespeople have repeatedly asserted that Net Neutrality rules would thwart investment needed to bridge the digital divide. And that this in turn would result in the loss of jobs.

Downes follows this theme, writing that Net Neutrality is a "noisy side show" distracting from "the real priority for both the White House and the FCC: getting the country wired for recovery."

Unfortunately, some on the left have bought this argument whole -- and even signed on to anti-Neutrality letters -- without weighing any evidence to support it.

That's because there is no evidence.

Claims that Net Neutrality will hurt investment and the economy are simply meant to distract attention from efforts by companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to use their market power to thwart competition and reduce investment.

In a report released in October, Free Press actually looked at the market data (required disclosure by the SEC) and found no connection between Net Neutrality and capital expenditure in new networks.

The report finds that open Internet rules will likely have a positive impact on investment in both the network and applications markets -- which in turn has a positive impact on jobs.

"There is no doubt that without Net Neutrality, investment in the broader Internet applications and content markets will be substantially harmed," writes S. Derek Turner, Free Press research director and the report’s author.

Net Neutrality = Billions of Dollars in Value

NYU's Institute of Policy Integrity put an exclamation mark to Derek's point. In a report they released earlier this week, they find that Net Neutrality fosters an essential "open and entrepreneurial dynamic" that "creates billions of dollars in value for the American public."

The Institute calls for meaningful Net Neutrality rules to protect the real values of the Internet -- its openness to new ideas, innovation and entrepreneurship:
"At its heart, Net Neutrality regulation is about who will get more surplus from the Internet market. Enforcing Net Neutrality keeps the surplus in the hands of the content providers. Eliminating it transfers the surplus to ISPs."
Free Press’ own market-based analysis finds that such transfer of capital would likely result in padded profit margins for companies like AT&T and Comcast and not investment in a faster and more accessible Internet.

It's against these companies' interests to give us the Internet we want (a fast, open and accessible Internet that’s unfettered by gatekeepers).

And since the Internet is essential infrastructure for 21st century prosperity, regulation is needed to protect against abuses of market power that will harm our economy in the long run.

Downes was too busy conjuring conclusions that made AT&T happy to actually make sense of the facts.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Washington's Hidden Economy

Astroturf. You may have heard the word or even seen the fake grassroots in action.

Astroturf groups are front operations that take corporate money to promote an industry's policy agenda, covering their tracks behind phony grassroots Web façades.

It's a formula for success that works in favor of deep-pocketed corporations. So much so that astroturf has spread over Washington like kudzu, stifling genuine public debate under a tangle of industry spin.

Astroturf is Washington's new invective. It's hurled left and right to dismiss groups that are engaged on both sides of President Obama's reform efforts.

"I'm pretty sure the grass is Astroturf-er over on the NetRoots [side]," wrote Phil Kerpen, policy director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative forum funded at least in part by big corporate benefactors. MSNBC's Rachel Maddow shot back, calling Kerpen's boss an astroturf "parasite" who "gets fat" taking corporate money to spread fear about reform.

But how can you tell astroturf from... well, the real grassroots?

It should be as simple as following the money. That trail usually leads directly to ExxonMobil (in the case of "Energy Citizens"), Peabody Energy (the "Clean Coal" campaign), the health insurance industry ("Patients United Now"), phone and cable companies ("Information Technology and Innovation Foundation"), and to any number of corporate special interests that are well practiced in Washington's art of deception.

The D.C. Dodge

But following the money is exactly what these groups don’t want you to do. Even when pressed, astroturf spokespeople duck and dodge, often claiming that revealing the identities of their donors would hamper a noble cause -- such as transparency.

Seems outrageous, right? Not to the many Washington insiders who regularly reap the rewards of the astroturf economy. Just look at the money flooding in to oppose Net Neutrality, an issue that has transformed the arcane debate over telecommunications policy into a full-fledged mudfest.

In the first three quarters of 2009, AT&T Inc., Comcast Corp., Time Warner Cable Inc., Verizon, and their trade groups spent nearly $75 million, according to the Senate Office of Public Records. They have used this to hire more than 500 lobbyists to discredit public interest calls for an open Internet.

Over the last four-year political cycle, they maxed out their legal allowance, contributing $33 million to federal campaigns to win the hearts and minds of elected leaders. And that's just the money we know about.

Because they're bankrolling astroturf behind a fig leaf of "public relations," large corporations aren't legally required to disclose the lion’s share of their funding of these fake grassroots groups.

"The estimates range from double to two to three times the $3.2 billion that was spent [in 2008] on direct lobbying in Washington," says Craig Holman, the legislative representative for watchdog group Public Citizen. "Astroturf work is expensive."

Protecting the Status Quo

These massive undisclosed sums include costs for high-end public relations firms, legal fees, push polling, direct mail efforts, and dubious think tank research.

On Internet policy, astroturf groups have pocketed millions from industry to fulfill Job No. 1: Lock in incumbent phone and cable companies' control over high-speed Internet connections in America. At present, these companies provide 97 percent of fixed connections into American homes, a status quo they are willing to spend untold sums to maintain.

This means hiring astroturf spokespeople to oppose any Internet consumer protections or policy reforms that would open the market to more competitors and consumer choice. In the hands of a skilled astroturf spokesperson, such reforms are radical, untested, and cumbersome regulations designed to smother the cyberspace economy, which has thrived in a magical realm free of government oversight.

Never mind that Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rules -- from the Carterfone decision to the Part 15 unlicensed ruling and "white spaces" decision -- were responsible for everything from the introduction of the first Internet modems to the proliferation of WiFi, and for prying open spectrum for the next generation of smart phones.

This evidence doesn't stop Mike McCurry from telling the world that "the Internet has worked absent regulation," a song the White-House-press-secretary-turned-hired-gun has been singing to the tune of a quarter-million-dollar paycheck from phone and cable companies.

This is how astroturfers hijack the debate. And if they're not debunked, it's how control over Internet access -- and potentially over content -- will be handed over wholesale to the few ISPs that dominate the marketplace.

That's the destructive irony of the astroturf economy. Millions of dollars are funneled into efforts to spread populist-sounding rhetoric that actually undermines the public, and protects the swindle that has turned Washington into a big company town.

-- Karr’s article was originally published at Internet Evolution.

Saturday, October 24, 2009

John McCain's 'Series of Tubes'

The "Maverick" just played his hand on Net Neutrality, and the cards reveal a man who's outsider image doesn't quite add up.

On Thursday, Sen. John McCain introduced legislation to kill the open Internet, the deceptively named "Internet Freedom Act." The bill would stop all FCC efforts to have an open and public discussion about proposed Net Neutrality rules.

This comes from a senator who has received more money ($894,379) from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and their lobbyists than any other member of Congress.

McCain also infamously told the media that he is "illiterate" when it comes to using the Internet and computers.

If this latest round of sock puppetry sounds an echo, it's because McCain seems to be channeling Sen. Ted Stevens' "series of tubes" gaffe from 2006.

Stevens' comments erupted forth during a Commerce Committee hearing as the Senator tried to squash efforts to establish Net Neutrality rules in Congress. But rather than beating back popular support for an open Internet, Stevens exposed himself to be a senator who is disconnected from any understanding of the Internet, but determined nonetheless to push forth the agenda of those that filled his campaign coffers.

As it was in 2006, social media has noticed, and is now awash with criticism of yet another Senator getting cozy with special interests. (You can join the critique here.) More mainstream media are starting to pick up on the McCain sellout as well.

This latest episode exposes the right and wrong sides of the Net Neutrality debate. And it poses a fundamental question to everyone:

Whom do you want to determine the future of the Internet?

A senator who is little more than a mouthpiece for the same phone and cable lobby that's vying to rig the Internet and control your clicks, or the more than 1.6 million people who have called for Net Neutrality -- a group that includes the geeks who created the Internet to be an open platform.

McCain has built his reputation as an alleged "straight shooter." If he is truly a person of integrity, he would return the tainted $894,379, spike this bad bill and get behind Net Neutrality.

But don't be surprised if this "Maverick" just keeps playing the cards that AT&T has dealt him.

Friday, October 23, 2009

AT&T Asks Employees To Fake It

AT&T has "asked' its employees to fake it in the fight against Net Neutrality.

The company’s top policy officer sent a memo to workers on Monday urging them to hide their company affiliation before posting anti-Net Neutrality comments to the Federal Communication Commission’s Web site.

"We encourage you, your family and friends to join the voices telling the FCC not to regulate the Internet," AT&T Senior Executive Vice President James Cicconi wrote in an internal communiqué forwarded to Free Press (and posted here). "It can be done through a personal e-mail account by going to www.openinternet.gov and clicking on the ‘Join the Discussion’ link."

On Thursday, the FCC will vote to proceed on a rulemaking process that will establish the Net Neutrality rules that millions of Americans have been fighting for since 2005.

And AT&T is going crazy at the prospect of an Internet that they can't control. The memo to AT&T employees, coming from one of the company’s most senior executives, would be hard to think of as merely a suggestion.

If that weren’t bad enough, Cicconi urges them to choose from a list of talking points sanctioned by the PR department -- fearful perhaps of what employees might say if they went off script.

Some of the talking points are hard to read without rolling your eyes.

For example: Cicconi suggests that employees write that Net Neutrality will “jeopardize efforts to deliver high-speed Internet services to every American.” Yet he’s unable to provide any rationale for this claim, other than saying that universal access is a goal that “can't be met with rules that halt private investment in broadband infrastructure.”

Really?

AT&T is loath to mention that it made considerable network investment when it had to abide by Net Neutrality conditions, and invested considerably less when it didn’t.

As a requirement of its 2006 merger with BellSouth, AT&T agreed to operate a neutral network (by adhering to the four principles of the FCC’s Internet Policy Statement as well as a fifth principle of nondiscrimination) for two years.

AT&T’s network investments increased immediately following the imposition of the Net Neutrality merger condition and continued to rise over the two years of the merger agreement. When the neutrality condition expired on Dec. 29, 2008, the company sharply reduced its investment.

So when Cicconi says that Net Neutrality means no buildout, the opposite is true.

By pressuring the company’s employees to pose as average citizens and post AT&T talking points, Cicconi is asking them to be doubly deceptive. Not only are they asked to hide their true identities but also to spread misinformation on behalf of a company that seems to be getting more desperate by the day.

Saturday, October 17, 2009

'Blue Bell' Dems Must Fix Mistake on Net Neutrality

Every now and then Democrats in Washington forget whom they really work for.

Friday was one such day as several dozen Democratic representatives buckled to phone and cable lobbyists and signed on to a letter designed to sow doubt about Net Neutrality.

Too often, in complicated matters of communications policy, members will take industry lobbyists at their word and sign on to whatever is foisted upon them. The phone and cable lobby funnel so much cash into campaign coffers that it’s easier to wave off the wonkery and just go along.

But these Dems should have thought twice before signing this letter (pdf). It was orchestrated by the phone and cable lobby as a warning shot across the bow of new Democratic majority at the Federal Communications Commission.

The FCC’s three Democrats are poised to fulfill Obama's pledge to make Net Neutrality a reality. It's an action that has received strong support from Democratic leadership across the board. If the FCC Dems succeed it would mark a massive win for the millions of people and many progressives who have fought so hard for this.

But deep-pocketed telco lobbyists have launched an all-out assault to derail the FCC. Phone and cable companies have hired more than 500 lobbyists, spent tens of millions of dollars, and unleashed sleazy Astroturf groups to mislead politicians, distort the facts, and resurrect long-debunked myths.

One letter signer, Rep. Jared Polis of Colorado, may have just realized his mistake. He is now in damage control here on DailyKos where he wrote:
I strongly support Net Neutrality and have been working on a letter to circulate advocating a regulatory approach that keeps the internet public and free… I'll post my own letter on dailykos later this week, and encourage you to ask your reps to sign it.
This new letter is a good start. I can't wait to read it. But if Polis truly wants to make amends, he should sign on with Rep. Waxman, Eshoo and Markey as co-sponsors of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (HR 3458). He should also write a separate letter to Chairman Genachowski of the FCC pledging his support of strong Net Neutrality rules.

The other Dems who signed Friday’s letter should do the same.

The fight for Net Neutrality is very real, and it's getting nasty. You can send a message to Washington by adding your name to the 2-million-person call to action.

And if you see your representatives' names at the bottom of that telco letter, you might want to give them a call and remind them who's really the boss.

Friday, October 16, 2009

Where Does Astroturf Go To Die?

How do we rid Washington of astroturf? It's a blight that's spread over the Capitol like kudzu, smothering genuine public debate under a tangle of misinformation.

Sporting names like "Tea Party Patriots," "Energy Citizens" and "Americans for Broadband," astroturf groups have pocketed millions from industry to prop up the status quo and denounce an overhaul of health care, curbs to carbon emissions and Net Neutrality protections.

These fake grassroots groups have scored some amazing successes. Working together with lobbyists and a pack of sputtering media pundits, they've bullied Washington's timid leadership -- on both the left and the right -- into inaction, or worse, outright opposition to the changes that a majority of Americans, in poll after poll, say they want.

Salon journalists Gabriel Winant and Tim Bell chronicle the way ideas forged in the crucible of Fox News and astroturf become GOP gospel. Rolling Stone reporter Tim Dickinson traces the money that connects astroturf lies to corporate checking accounts.

But what happens when the corporate spigot gets turned off? Does astroturf still wield its power to frighten politicians and sway the media, or does it simply wither up and blow away?

The Rise and Fall of 'HandsOff'

The story of one noted astroturf group is instructive. In 2006, the world was first introduced to "Hands Off the Internet," a well-oiled group led by former Clinton Press Secretary Mike McCurry and funded by AT&T and other Internet service providers.

HandsOff pulled out all of the standard astroturf tricks to stifle popular enthusiasm for Net Neutrality - the principle that keeps Internet users, not ISPs, in control of the Net. HandsOff purchased millions of dollars' worth of ads in trade journals and the Washington Post to spin Net Neutrality as a government crackdown on the free-flowing Web.

McCurry worked his media connections to appear before cameras as an "independent expert" carrying on the legacy of the Clinton administration. He and his HandsOff Co-chair Christopher Wolf wrote Op-Eds for prominent publications like the New York Times without disclosing who was punching their meal tickets. They went before the cameras of mainstream cable stations. Soon, politicians were regurgitating HandsOff talking points (fed directly to the astroturf group by AT&T) without blinking.

HandsOff figured it was easy enough to extend these deceptive practices into cyberspace. The group built a Web site with a grassroots feel, blanketed all the leading blogs with ads, and dispatched McCurry to prominent online sites to trade on his reputation as a loyal Democrat.

What the Netroots Hates Most

The only problem with this strategy: HandsOff forgot about the netroots and their loathing of fakes -- a loathing that would come into full force as readers at Huffington Post, MyDD, DailyKos and FireDogLake reacted to McCurry's phony overtures.

McCurry first submitted a commentary to Huffington Post (he's since removed it but his follow-up post is here), in which he called Net Neutrality "a solution in search of a problem."

Readers weren't fooled. A cursory peak behind the curtain of HandsOff.org revealed a sponsor list of telecommunications companies and industry front groups. McCurry's post soon received hundreds of angry comments accusing him of "selling out" his progressive beliefs to corporate interests.

Matt Stoller, then writing for the popular progressive blog MyDD, led the charge. Stoller is a bloggers' blogger, who has worked tirelessly to organize the netroots and alert them to new issues, messages and ideas. Author Malcolm Gladwell of The Tipping Point might classify him as a connector -- like Paul Revere on his midnight ride. Stoller sounded the alarm and people listened.

In a post on MyDD titled "Mike McCurry: Mouthpiece for Deception," Stoller accused McCurry of operating in bad faith: "McCurry is deceiving the public, and it's making my blood boil," Stoller wrote. "Working as a lobbyist for telecommunications companies is fine... What's NOT fine is that he's misrepresenting the fight."

Other prominent bloggers like Atrios, David Sirota and Arianna Huffington piled on. Soon, McCurry's byline stopped appearing on Huffington Post altogether, and he was so frequently called out in public appearances for shilling that he retreated into the safe enclave of phone- and cable-company sponsored events.

Make Phoniness a Liability

Within a year, the companies that funded HandsOff realized that it was more of a liability than an asset. Lobbying payments to McCurry and Wolf dried up -- from more than a half million dollars in 2006 to nothing in 2008, according to the Lobbying Disclosure Act Database.

By then, both McCurry and Wolf were long gone. McCurry had scampered off to shill for another AT&T front group; Wolf continues to lobby for corporate interests as a highly paid D.C. lawyer. Both have scrubbed HandsOff from their online resumes.

And while some functionary still posts a rare update to the group's darkly illegible blog, the rest of the site has fallen into disrepair, serving more as a tombstone for astroturf gone awry than as a legitimate voice in the debate.

This epithet for HandsOff is itself a testament to the power of an open Internet. The group's efforts to mislead the public would have gone unnoticed were it not for an active netroots, ready to call out fraud in the mainstream media and speak up in support of Net Neutrality.

But is that enough? While this astroturf group is dead, the companies behind it have simply moved their chips to other front operations.

Like the plastic product itself, astroturf never really dies. As long as corporate special interests see value in bankrolling phony front groups, they will. And as long as mainstream media air astroturf spokespeople without revealing their sponsors, the business of fakery will remain a feature of Washington's political landscape.

The good news is that more people are becoming aware of the problem and taking to the Internet to kill astroturf before it tightens its hold on democracy.

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Glenn Beck's Crazy Train Makes Stop Out Back

Today, I'm especially proud of the work that I do.



You too can be a part of our sinister plot by becoming a member of the Free Press Action Fund.

UPDATE: This pretty much says it all:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Bend It Like Beck
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorMichael Moore

Tuesday, October 06, 2009

Washington Post Needs to Come Clean on Net Neutrality

A Washington Post blog post published Monday hits on one central reason for making Net Neutrality the law.

In "Protecting Free Speech in the Digital Age, " guest blogger Dawn Nunziato says that free expression on the Internet is too important to be subject to the whims of powerful phone and cable companies -- companies that have already demonstrated their willingness to block new ideas and innovations via the Web.

Nunziato is spot on. But a blog post doesn't go nearly far enough to right the wrong the Post's editors committed the Monday before. On Sept. 28, the paper printed a full-fledged editorial against Net Neutrality without revealing to readers that the Washington Post Co. has an economic incentive to block online speech.

The Post editorial, "The FCC's Heavy Hand," was gift wrapped for the narrow special interests of the influential phone and cable lobby. And it's been cited ad nauseum by phone and cable company shills intent on removing the last protection of an open Internet.

The Post's editors state that Net Neutrality would hurt investment in a "vibrant and well-functioning marketplace" when, in fact, the opposite is true: Carriers working under neutrality conditions have invested tens of billions of dollars in network buildout and improvements.

(For more on this and other industry falsehoods read our recent brief: Digital Déjà Vu: Old Myths about Net Neutrality.)

The Post editorial suffers not only from inaccuracy, but also from lack of disclosure. One of the companies that stands to gain from a world without Net Neutrality is Cable One, an Internet service provider active in 19 states that hopes to pad its already considerable profits by stifling the free flow of online communications. One of the principal owners of Cable One is - you guessed it -- the Washington Post Co.

Cable One Chief Executive Tom Might has been an outspoken opponent of Net Neutrality, calling it "a very, very clever D.C. campaign" designed to intimidate politicians "because it sounds so wonderful, like Mom and apple pie."

Given the Post's recent controversy over paid editorial salons, the paper would do well to better mind the firewall that allegedly separates news and editorial operations from business back offices.

Readers should demand that the Post's ombudsman and editorial page editor clarify this obvious oversight. You can prompt them to respond by sending an e-mail to: ombudsman@washpost.com. Fred Hiatt, the editor of the Post's editorial page, can be reached at hiattf@washpost.com .

The Post needs to come clean whenever it presents as honest opinion a view that also protects its commercial interests.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

FCC Makes Move on Net Neutrality

The fight for Net Neutrality took a big step forward on Monday with the chair of the Federal Communications Commission announcing plans to expand the rules to protect a free and open Internet.

In a speech at the Brookings Institution, Julius Genachowski said the FCC must be a "smart cop on the beat” preserving Net Neutrality against increased efforts by providers to block services and applications over both wired and wireless connections.

Genachowski’s speech comes as a breath of fresh air in a Washington policy environment that has long stagnated under the influence of a powerful phone and cable lobby.

“If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late,” Genachowski said citing a number of recent examples where network providers have acted as gatekeepers:

We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications (phone calls delivered over data networks) and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen at least one service provider deny users access to political content.


A Call for Wired and Wireless Neutrality

The agency has earlier noted concerns about the blocking of applications and services on new handheld Internet devices such as the iPhone.

Ben Scott of Free Press responds to Genachowski's speech
Genachowski, who was an architect of President Obama’s technology agenda, proposed that the agency adopt new principles that would prevent discrimination and require full transparency from ISPs that seek to manage their networks. The new principles are additions to the “Four Freedoms” endorsed by the FCC in 2005.

Genachowski asked the FCC to adopt all six principles as Internet rules that are “essential to ensuring its continued openness.” FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn have already indicated they support stronger Net Neutrality rules.

“The rise of serious challenges to the free and open Internet puts us at a crossroads,” Genachowski said. “We could see the Internet’s doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised. Or we could take steps to preserve Internet openness, helping ensure a future of opportunity, innovation, and a vibrant marketplace of ideas.”

The Right Rules, Right Now

In a panel of experts following the speech, David Young of Verizon Communications stated that his company is able to “live with” Internet openness standards. “Openness and innovation are keys to our success,” Young said, but added predictably that he prefers a “hands off approach.”

Young later added a familiar lobbyist refrain that he "doesn't understand what the problem is that we are trying to solve" with openness rules. Verizon has already deployed 194 lobbyists at a cost of more than $13 million this year to fight Net Neutrality both at the FCC and in Congress.

"The Internet is inevitably going to have a regulatory structure around it," Free Press Policy Director Ben Scott said in response to Young. "What we're deciding is: What is it going to look like?"

“What we heard today is a very common-sense approach,” Scott said. “But in this town, doing something common sense is considered bold.”

“[This is] about fair rules of the road for companies that control access to the Internet,” Genachowski concluded. “We will do as much as we need to do, and no more, to ensure that the Internet remains an unfettered platform for competition, creativity, and entrepreneurial activity.”

The FCC Opens Its Doors

Now the FCC has to actually write the new rules and invite comments from the public and interested parties.

To engage more public participation in the process, Genachowski announced that the agency would hold a series of public workshops on openness. In addition, the FCC launched a new Web site, www.openinternet.gov, so the public can “contribute to the process.”