One down, for now. One to go.

I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, as an original content provider, I'd like to think my rights are protected to do with my art and writing as I see fit.

Let me put this in an analogy to better sum up that sentiment. Say I buy a bowl for my breakfast at work. I store it in the communal kitchen so I can grab it anytime I want some soup or oatmeal.

Juliette Garside | Oct 1

The Guardian - US mobile company files lawsuit over Federal Communications Commission's right to rule on flow of internet traffic

The largest US mobile phone company has began legal action against new government regulations that protect the free flow of internet traffic in the latest twist on the "net neutrality" debate.

Verizon Communications is taking the action following the publication last week of new Federal Communications Commission rules barring fixed-line broadband companies from prioritising or blocking any legal content on their networks.

Some companies would like to charge content producers in exchange for delivering their material, such as movies, to consumers faster than other non-paying internet traffic.

The rules, which come into effect in two months, are more lenient on mobile networks. Phone companies are only barred from blocking voice and other applications that compete with their own services, but are allowed to manage all other traffic so that their systems are not overwhelmed.

This might end up being a "tl;dr" essay, so please forgive me in advance. I'll try to be brief, but some of the concepts need exploring.

I woke up this morning at 3AM to the sound of garbage cans being emptied by the sanitation collectors. I couldn't get back to sleep, partly from the startle, partly because I just don't sleep so well anymore.

Mostly, because I started to think about Glenn Beck.

Well, sort of. His name came up in the monologue.

See, I started to think about the past twenty years of hatred and intolerance...really, fifty years, but liberal thought had managed to mask the undercurrent in American society and like mushrooms in a dank basement, hated took root and spored.

Kevin Drawbaugh | Washington | April 8

Reuters - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to reject Internet "neutrality" rules that were adopted last year to keep big Internet service providers from blocking certain traffic

House Republicans, in a 240-179 vote, pushed through a measure disapproving the Federal Communications Commission's rules. Tech and telecom giants such as Verizon Communications Inc (VZ.N) and Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) could be affected.

The outlook for further progress by the Republicans in rolling back the FCC's actions was uncertain, however.

Jasmin Melvin | Washington | January 5

Reuters - U.S. regulators are asking software developers in an "Open Internet Challenge" to create apps that let Internet users know when their service provider -- fixed or mobile -- is interfering with content.

...The challenge also tries to boost useful research into ways to measure, preserve and track the openness of the Internet.

A few people wondered how the new wireless carrier rules the FCC will adopt today will affect them. Here's a preview:

Trudy Muller, an Apple spokeswoman, said the company had removed the app “because it violated our developer guidelines.” Ms. Muller added: “Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm’s way.”

Get it? It's not censorship, per se, but it is corporate control over what you see, what you read and what you hear. Wikileaks has broken no laws that the New York Times hasn't broken. The Pentagon and Biden and The State Department have all said no one has died as a result of the leaks. But it has embarrassed our leaders.

I remember what Numerian said last year in response to my predictions in forty years time post, that we would see a continuing drift towards corporate feudalism. I confess, I had a hard time wrapping my head around this idea at first. But in the last twelve months I've seen it more and more. Free speech will not be regulated by the Federal Government. The Bill Of Rights guarantees it won't. But there is nothing in the constitution to stop corporations from regulating speech. This is exactly what is going to happen. Most people get their internet from wireless devices these days, so expect more and more rigid firewalls.

The news coming out of Washington regarding net neutrality falls anywhere from lamentable to despairing, but let's face it: the internet has been the victim of commercial corruption for a long time. Obviously, blogs have to pay for themselves, and membership contributions just don't bring in significant amounts of money. The blogs are like non-profit arts organizations; ticket sales and membership dues cover only a portion of the costs. Program advertisement helps, and more important still are grants from foundations, governments, and corporations. Since most blogs are organized as profit making businesses, only corporate donations make a significant dent in the budget. That's probably why at this moment on The Agonist I'm looking at Mickey Mouse out of the corner of my eye, beckoning me to Disney World.

Scoop.co.nz - The story on the surface makes for a script for a new Oliver Stone Hollywood thriller. A 39-year old Australian hacker holds the President of the United States and his State Department hostage to a gigantic cyber “leak,” unless the President leaves Julian Assange and his Wikileaks free to release hundreds of thousands of pages of sensitive US Government memos. A closer look at the details, so far carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international media such as the New York Times, reveals a clear agenda.

Edward Wyatt | Washington | December 1

NYT - The plan from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to ensure an open and neutral Internet drew mixed reviews on Wednesday from consumer advocates and Internet service providers, presenting the agency with an uncertain way forward as it considers new broadband regulation.

The proposal, by Julius Genachowski, would forbid both wired and wireless Internet service providers from blocking lawful content. It would also require broadband Internet service providers to give consumers basic information about how the companies manage their networks and would forbid discrimination in transmitting lawful content.

. . . once again acting very badly:

First, what are they doing:

The New York Times reported last night that the cable giant has threatened to block popular online movie service Netflix unless new and extortionate tolls are paid by the company that streams its films. Earlier in the day, Comcast was caught red handed trying to smother the marketplace for competitive Internet modems designed for use on its network -- a blatant violation of fundamental Net Neutrality principles.

And so, what does it mean?

Look, these may sound like small things. So Comcast doesn’t want to connect to other networks or other devices without its terms being met - big deal. But these are precisely the kinds of schemes that the old pre-divestiture AT&T carried out with aplomb and great seriousness of purpose for decades.

This is how companies that don’t face competition act.

Why aren't we enforcing anti-trust laws? Seriously?

The FCC is currently looking to enforce new regulations that will deal a great blow to the US wireless broadband technology sector. The proposed regulations are in response to the issue of net neutrality and the concerns that surround equal access and service rights. The issue of net neutrality and providing optimal access to broadband coverage for all members of society is absolutely something I am on board with. Giving all members of society, regardless of socio-economic position, a chance to reach their full potential is something we should strive towards. It will help the country regain its strength and progress into the future. The current approach the FCC is looking to take is the wrong way to go about this however. Everyone is aware of the fragile state that our economy is currently in. Placing unnecessary and harmful regulations on one of the sectors of our economy that is thriving, wireless technology, is counter intuitive to getting us back on our feet.

Something like this should be done in America.

. . . its allies to the curb.

The American nation has always purported to treat all people equally not discriminating them by color, religion or class. These ideas and words run contrary to the real life experiences and day to day life of the general public. From the struggles of the civil rights movement to the riots in Washington DC in 1968 and the recent election of our nation’s first black president we have seen how race and class are still prevalent issues in our society. Old stereotypes and assumptions about intellect and competence still haunt Hispanic, black, and poor populations of our national commonwealth. Even those organizations and groups who profess to be on the side of the down trodden and marginalized can be found to slip into these crooked and misguided ways of viewing certain populations of our society. The populations they claim to represent.

Claire Cain Miller & Miguel Helft | San Francisco | August 9

NYT - Google and Verizon on Monday introduced a proposal for how Internet service should be regulated — and were immediately criticized by groups that favor keeping the network as open as possible.

According to the proposal, Internet service providers would not be able to block producers of online content or offer them a paid “fast lane.” It says the Federal Communications Commission should have the authority to stop or fine any rule-breakers.

The proposal, however, carves out exceptions for Internet access over cellphone networks, and for potential new services that broadband providers could offer. In a joint blog post, the companies said these could include things like health care monitoring, “advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.”

Cecilia Kang | Washington | August 6

WaPo - The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday called off its closed-door meetings with big Internet companies aimed at reaching agreement on protecting consumer access to the Web, after drawing criticism for attempting to broker a deal with limited public input.

The breakdown of the talks followed news of a separate agreement between Verizon and Google that would let Verizon give priority to certain Web content on its fixed-line networks. The deal between the two companies -- which are partners in the Android wireless phone platform -- does not apply to Verizon's mobile networks.

. . . a lot of activism here at The Agonist, but this is one time when every single one of you should drop what you are doing and sign this petition.

Here.

Otherwise, kiss the internet as you know it good-bye.

. . . won for net neutrality?

We lost. Actually, Obama betrayed us. There is no other word for it.

There will soon come a day when your Truthout and Agonist and Firedoglake and Daily Kos and many, many others will be second or even third tier sites that you will be able to access but will be painfully slow.

The internet, as you know it, is dead. Prepare for places like The Agonist to resemble public access shows on at 300am on your local cable network. That is where we are headed.

Welcome to the future. It doesn't happen in America any more.

Here.

Well, I didn't, technically, write it; but I signed it!

Michael Collins

74 Democrats signed a joint letter to the FCC supporting internet throttling by Verizon, ATT and Comcast. Throttling lets carriers slow or block internet traffic. This is a clear attack on net neutrality.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi just endorsed net neutrality. But The Money Party is busy buying votes. Here's a Top Ten list of the biggest rake-offs by the 74 Democrats. They had a total take of $2.8 million with an average of $37,000 a piece from industry sources and lobbyists. No telling how many jobs, trips, and other favors were provided. The Money Party is nothing, if not thorough.

Let your member of Congress know how you feel. Complaint letter to Congress

Let's give credit where credit is due: to Speaker Pelosi. Here:

Part of the innovation agenda I advocated for when I became Leader was universal broadband. We had hoped to get it done within five years. We just got the bill passed three years ago under President Bush, but we had no funding. Now we want to have the resources to take us to that place so we don’t have a disparity between urban and rural populations. Reclassification, net neutrality, universal access for every American, these are priorities for us. And we see it not in isolation but as part of a new propserity, as a job creator, to make America healthier, smarter and an international leader.

As the Speaker said: "If the House takes up legislation to gut a free and open Internet 'it’s not going to be a Democratic initiative.'"

Well said.

Cecilia Kang | Washington | May 6

WaPo - The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission plans to seek clear-cut powers to regulate Internet service providers, redefining the government's role over at least parts of the fast-growing industry.

The proposal, to be announced Thursday, is expected to be opposed by broadband network operators such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, whose Internet access businesses are becoming their main source of revenue as consumers rely on the Web as a primary communication tool.

Deregulate financial services? You get a market crash and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Deregulate environmental laws? You get an apocalyptic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Deregulate mine safety? A shitload of coal miners die.

Deregulate food safety requirements? People get poisoned.

Deregulate the internet?

Do you see a fucking pattern here people?

Nate Anderson | Washington | April 6

Ars Technica - The FCC's decision to sanction Comcast for its 2007 P2P blocking was overruled today by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The question before the court was whether the FCC had the legal authority to "regulate an Internet service provider's network management practice." According to a three-judge panel, "the Commission has failed to make that showing" and the FCC's order against Comcast is tossed.

When the complaints against Comcast first surfaced, they noted that the company was violating the FCC's "Internet Policy Statement" drafted in 2005. That statement provided "four freedoms" to Internet users, including freedom from traffic discrimination apart from reasonable network management. The FCC decided that Comcast's actions had not been "reasonable network management," but Comcast took to the agency to court, arguing that the FCC had no right to regulate its network management practices at all.

EFF, By Richard Esguerra, January 27

Remember what put the debate over net neutrality into high gear? In 2007, EFF and the Associated Press confirmed suspicions that Comcast was clandestinely blocking BitTorrent traffic. It was one of the first clear demonstrations that ISPs are technologically capable of interfering with your Internet connection, and that they may not even tell you about it. After receiving numerous complaints, the FCC in 2008 stepped in and threw the book at Comcast, requiring them to stop blocking BitTorrent. The Comcast-BitTorrent experience put net neutrality at the top of the FCC agenda.

Yet now that the FCC has formally issued draft net neutrality regulations, they have a huge copyright loophole in them — a loophole that would theoretically permit Comcast to block BitTorrent just like it did in 2007 — simply by claiming that it was "reasonable network management" intended to "prevent the unlawful transfer of content."