Stuart Noble

There’s been a bit of discussion going around about Rep. Hinchey’s proposed legislation. The headline from the Raw Story piece is quite telling, “Rep. believes Democratic media reform bill may prevent possible 'fascist' takeover of US media”. One of Hinchey’s staffers is quoted, “Whether or not there is a purpose that includes fascism, we could wind up in a fascist situation if corporations end up controlling information without the government providing some balancing mechanism, such as the Fairness Doctrine,”

K.C. Jones | January 2

Tech Web - The AT&T/BellSouth merger agreement contains an unprecedented network neutrality provision that could form the basis of future policy and regulations, according to a Columbia University law professor.

The language in AT&T's commitment to the Federal Communications Commission marks a significant step forward in defining the issue, according to Timothy Wu, a law professor specializing in technology and telecommunications.

"As the first working rule, it may serve as a model and an experiment for what follows, which is why it merits attention," Wu, co-author of Who Controls the Internet? (Oxford University Press, 2006) and a charter member of SaveTheInternet.com, wrote in his analysis. "At a level of theory, the language in the agreement is premised on a belief in the merits of a neutral network, and in particular its cultural, political, and economic benefits. The preservation of an open communications network as a catalyst for these sectors, without unfairly restricting AT&T's business, appears to be the motivating force behind the agreed-upon language."

much more at the link

Had another great conversation with Ben Scott today about the stunning AT&T concessions made last night over net neutrality. Net Neutrality has been a critical issue here at The Agonist for quite some time, an issue we will continue to cover closely as it heads into a Democratic House and Senate.

. . . said in this post, "we should be careful, this might not be over just yet."

They were right. David Isenberg over at Isenblog on a post he calls 'Loophole Watch.' We'll cover this and more this afternoon when Ben Scott, policy director at Free Press and a founding member of the Save the Internet coalition sounds off about the deal AT&T struck last night.

Mind you, San Antonio is AT&T headquarters, so maybe a few execs will be listening to the show as they drive home this afternoon.

Take action: Call Congress: 888-355-3588, it's free; Write Congress, Blog it or add the logo to your site, and make it your MySpace best friend!

Huge news out of San Antonio tonight as AT&T, which is headquartered here, gives in to several critical demands so that its proposed BellSouth merger go through. As the Save the Internet Blog notes:

The phone company filed a “letter of commitment” with the Federal Communications Commission in which it promises to observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 24 months. Now it’s left to Congress to follow the FCC’s lead and make Net Neutrality permanent under the law.

Ben Scott, of Save the Internet and the Free Press, will be on the radio tomorrow with me at 430pm central to talk about this critical development and more.

Let's make something clear: the future doesn't happen in America anymore. Got it?

Why do I say that? Well, this is a perfect example:

Top phone company AT&T Inc. shrugged off concerns on Tuesday that it would need to build a more expensive, all-fiber network to handle an expected surge in high-speed Internet and video traffic.

What they are saying is this: we don't want to invest in the future because we have a technology (substandard in many ways) that is just barely meeting demand and we're going to squeeze as much profits out of this as possible. Screw you and your dreams of internet speeds like they have in South Korea and parts of Europe. We don't want to be French!

It really makes no sense to me. Wasn't getting fibre into the home called the 'golden mile?' And wasn't the winner of that race going to really make oodles of cash? Looks like AT&T just conceded.

Even though we have the majorities in both houses of Congress net neutrality is as critical now as it ever was.

Take action: Call Congress: 888-355-3588, it"s free Write Congress, Blog it or add the logo to your site, and make it your MySpace best friend!

http://www.videsignline.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=193402843

Not many years ago this very same bonehead mentality envisioned fiber optic transmission of everything into every home. The result was miles of dark fiber. The influx and "demand" though for thousands of channels of commercial crap will eventually mean the death of the internet as we know it now.

A thousand channels of TV? Yeah, I'd rather just plug myself into an electric cattle prod. Or how about a do it yourself lobotomy. Yes, it's a sad day when we admit it all only exists for profit, there is profit in the exploitation of people.

Ok, let me explain something to the free market fundamentalists, who no more understand what a free market is than most Christians understand what being Christ-like means. (Hint: if you are pro war and think getting wealthy is a worthwhile goal, Christ would have had nothing to do with you. Good luck getting that camel through the eye of that needle.)

Unregulated markets in most goods or services tend towards either oligopolies or monopolies. They do not tend towards markets competing on price and quality amongst a large number of providers. Over time, in most markets, the natural competitive instinct is to acquire - to integrate until you're in control.

Why? Because the best way to make a profit is to provide something people need and must have and can't get from anyone else. If you are the only person who has food, you can charge anything. If you are the only company providing gasoline, you can charge almost anything. And so on. Or, rather, in the modern world, if you are one of a few it's pretty easy to come to an understanding on price, even if that understanding is based on a wink and a nod.

If you are the only company providing broadband connections (or one of only a few) to a large chunk of the US (or if it's just you and the local cable company) you can jack the price up to as high as the market can bear. And since no one is really competing with you, there's no need to really improve service.

This is what the Department of Justice has just decided to do by approving the merger of Bellsouth and AT&T - a merger which control almost half of all landlines in the United States. The CEO of AT&T, as Matt Stoller points out, is on the record against Net Neutrality - as would you be if you were in his position - charging more for access by customers, and more for access to those customers by companies on the net sure sounds great.

Here's how it works - just like the old railway companies. When the railways controlled the West the way they did it was simple - you paid what they said to get your grain to market (or sold it to them at a price they dicated) or your grain rotted and you got nothing. Of course they set the prices at just enough for most farmers to limp from year to year and took the vast majority of the profit for themselves.

More After the Jump

This is great news. Senator Schumer came out in favor of net neutrality today. He said:

"I believe that Internet access for consumers must be protected, and that’s why I support net neutrality. As the Internet continues to grow and evolve, we must make sure that average consumers can still use the web to learn, shop, and communicate. The Internet has the power to enhance one of the most fundamental values of our democracy: freedom of speech. That's why I support the free flow of information on the Internet and enforceable network neutrality. I will oppose the flawed and limiting provisions in Senator Stevens' bill, S. 2686, which would allow Internet providers to discriminate against the websites of their competitors—hurting the ability of consumers and everyday citizens to view the websites they want. If the Stevens bill is not changed to protect network neutrality, I will oppose it. Network neutrality has allowed the Internet to be an engine of economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech. Eliminating it would be a serious mistake."

Good for Chuck, he got this one correct.

Take action: Call Congress: 888-355-3588, it"s free Write Congress, Blog it or add the logo to your site, and make it your MySpace best friend!

Matt Stoller | MyDD | July 26

[snip]
The telco companies are spending something along the lines of $100 million in lobbying and advertising to get national video franchising and control over the internet. It has turned into a progressive fight, with Democrats and moderate Republicans protecting the internet against extreme right-wingers and astroturf groups. Business reporters like to pretend that it's Google versus Verizon, but it's not. This is a public outcry on behalf of net neutrality, and against phone and cable companies that we don't like.

I'm not sure what's going to happen in the Senate, but the telephone companies may have damaged themselves beyond repair in their overreach this session. These companies are dogs with fleas, and the public is now wise to them. It's not just Verizon's union-busting, or their censorship over the cell phone networks they do control. It's not just their attempt to grab control of the internet and screw it up, or their obvious purchase of Republican Senators and Democratic and Republican House members.

It's more fundamental, a basic corruption of their corporate mission.

Read the rest at the link.

Before I go watch Entourage--my favorite TV show, which I missed Sunday while watching Superman at the movies with the wife I wanted to post this clip of Amanda Congdon from Scarborough Country. It's an interesting segement and I am happy to see Amanda getting some attention. But I just have to say, she's far too gracious and nice a person to ever succeed in the TV world. She was generous to her old partner, and not that faux nice we are all so familiar with. She came across as genuine. That's why she wins on the net, but won't in the mainstream. Too real, too approachable. And it's ensuring people like her and other v-loggers and bloggers have the opportunity to make an audience for themselves that makes net neutrality such an important fight. Just my two kopeks. Click on the pic of Amanda to watch the video.

Sanford discusses Senator Stevens. If Sanford weren't the even handed reporter that I think he is, I might suspect a bit a sarcasm in his post.

Nawwww, not Sanford?

By the way:

Two interesting diaries here and here that are completely unrelated to the net neutrality topic, but interesting nonetheless. Interesting in a like-the-Indo-European-language-post kind of way. If that makes any sense whatsoever. Not such a good day for me.

John Banbenek | July 10

Internet Storm Center - With the recent debate on network neutrality raging, I thought it appropriate to mention some of what I think the information security implications of net neutrality are (if adopted). This is probably US-centric, but it shows how a policy if not fully thought through can negatively impact the ability of an organization to secure their environment.

Briefly, network neutrality is designed to prevent ISPs from favoring certain websites over others (faster load times) or certain applications over others. In short, it's designed for consumer PC environments only (the exact environments that are pretty much the biggest nightmare on the internet).

The supporters of network neutrality would allow for filtering of illegal traffic, but the problem comes in with grey areas. For instance, network neutrality would not allow ISPs to filter P2P traffic as a class. P2P isn't inherently illegal (as much as the MPAA/RIAA would like to say otherwise) however it isn't generally used for honest purposes (with few exceptions). For instance, on my network, when I see bittorrent I know someone is generally doing something bad. Because DMCA makes ISPs responsible for P2P piracy of their users, some ISPs simply don't allow P2P. That would not be a viable option under a net neutrality regime.

Sen. Ted Steven's statement on the Internet have gotten a lot of play. This was the statement made famous by such displays of knowledge as "the Internet is a series of tubes" along with the unforgettable "an internet was sent [to me] by my staff".

Finally someone has set this 'deluge of expertise' to a techno beat!  Now you too can dance along to the Senator's statement by downloading the file here...

For any other que

Doc Searls asks an important question about net neutrality and the future of the internet in this post:

Right then I realized that Net Neutrality is just another name for a clear digital path between devices. Regardless of how near or far away they may be. And that there is an incalculable sum of money to be made in clearing those paths and putting them to use. Also that I won't live to see the job finished.

"Broadband" is like "long distance": just another name for transient scarcity. We want our Net to be as fast, accessible and unrestricted as a hard drive. (And in time even that analogy will seem too slow.)

The only way that will happen is if the Net becomes ubiquitous infrastructure -- something which, in a practical sense, nobody owns, everybody can use and anybody can improve.

There is infinitely more business in making that happen, and using the results, than Congress can ever protect for the carriers alone.

And guess who is in the best position to make money doing that? Right: the carriers.

Will somebody please tell them?

When the corporate heads of the carriers are like Ed Whitacre, who doesn't even have a computer on his desk, much less use email, why should they listen to us? They are too busy trying to squeeze analog money from a digital product.

Talk about backwards.

Why have people this out of touch and this ignorant of how the internet really works been entrusted to make decisions about it?

A friend nailed it in an earlier email, "He sounds like an old man in the park who yells at pigeons."

Yeah, an old guy who forgot to bring the seeds, no less.

It's on CSPAN-2 right now. Watch. Wyden rocks. Here's the story from B&C:

As the Senate prepares to take up video franchise/telecom reform in the Commerce Committee Tuesday, Senator Ron Wyden (R-Ore.) has threatened to put a hold on the bill if it is not strong enough on network neutrality.

Wyden, who has co-sponsored an amendment strengthening network neutrality language, told home state newspaper, The Oregonian, that "I will do anything I can to block a major telecom rewrite that undermines what makes the Internet special. I will block it. I will do anything I can to derail it," including a hold.

Video after the jump. Here is Wyden's statement and Sanford comments on today's action on Capitol Hill.

I'll have more on this shortly. But the Senate Commerce Committee voted 11-11 today on net neutrality.

Matt makes an important point here, as the momentum going into a floor fight is clearly on our side now:

They held under intense lobbying pressure from the telecoms. I think it's fair to say that we've reversed the momentum on this issue, turning it from a little noticed 23-8 subcommittee vote in the House on April 5 to today's 11-11 tie in Commerce Committee and clearly what will be a contentious floor fight.

Moveon.org agrees (from a press relaease, no link available):

The little guy has seized the momentum in this fight to preserve Internet freedom,” said Eli Pariser, Executive Director of MoveOn.org Civic Action. “Companies like AT&T thought they’d easily get Congress to allow tollbooths on the Internet by spending millions in TV ads, lobbying, and campaign contributions. But millions of Internet users are fighting back together to preserve Net Neutrality, and we’re holding politicians accountable on this issue.”

This isn't over and I will have who voted and how, up soon. McCain voted with the Republicans but every Democrat on the committee voted for net neutrality, and Olympia Snowe. Kay Bailey Hutchison is obviously no friend of net neutrality. Then again, she has received over $60,000 $13,250 from the telco cartel. Figures. She's not heard the last from us here at The Agonist.

More from Save The Internet.

Take action: Call Congress: 888-355-3588, it"s free Write Congress, Blog it or add the logo to your site, and make it your MySpace best friend!

And you read.

With apologies to Max and Atrios.

Take action: Call Congress: 888-355-3588, it"s free Write Congress, Blog it or add the logo to your site, and make it your MySpace best friend!

Cory Doctorow weighs in on net neutrality, here.

John Doerr and Reed Hastings (CEO of Netflix) write about net neutrality in the San Jose Mercury News.

Tim Berners Lee says, "this is serious." Also, here is TBL's video. He's right and Lawrence Lessig writes about what Tim Berners Lee had to say.

Reuters reports that the Stevens Bill is short of votes. Good news?

Michael J. Kopps, an FCC Commissioner, asks, "An Internet for the few or the many?"

The Christian Coalition put out an alert on net neutrality. Worth a read.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-Bellsouth) obfuscates.

Finally, Richard has simply had too much of the kool-aid. As I have repeatedly said: when the Christian Coalition and MOveon.org agree on an issue that politicians fight tooth and nail, it's a picture perfect indication that the politicians are doing the bidding of the corporate masters, not that of the people who elected them.

David Sarasohn | June 25

The Oregonian - S ometime this week, the Senate Commerce, Science & Transportation Committee, like a lot of folks organizing their desk, will get to work on their phone bill. Sometime after that, after sorting through about 100 proposed amendments, the committee will send a giant bill overhauling U.S. telecommunications law to the Senate floor.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore, will be waiting.

More at the link.

This isn't technically a net neutrality post, but it is germane. Why? Because there is no where near enough true competition in the cable, internet, broadband space. For example, take a look at this video:

Time Warner, my provider, is better, much better. But we still need competition.

Watch Ed Whitacre get grilled by Sen. Arlen Specter, (R-PA) on AT&T's enabling of the Bush domestic spying program. Make sure to watch it through to the end. Specter gets seriously pissed.

Video after the jump.

Here's a great, simple and easy to understand net neutrality video that even Mike McCury or Charlie Gonzalez couldn't distort.

Also see Sanford Nowlin in today's paper asking why Charlie Gonzalez didn't accept my invitation to the show? Inquiring minds want to know!

Take action: Call Congress: 888-355-3588, it"s free Write Congress, Blog it or add the logo to your site, and make it your MySpace best friend!