The Agonist - Net Neutrality Diary

Electronic Renaissance or Digital Dark Ages?

Tue, 23 Jan 2007 03:06:28 -0800

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,”

I applaud the congressman for using the F word. It’s long overdue. However, if we’re being honest and objective (objectivity is quite subjective I realize), don’t we ALREADY HAVE a fascist situation in which a handful of corporations ALREADY control the information without government providing some balancing mechanism?

Ian Welsh at the Agonist has a recent post witch addresses another side to the same problem, ever shrinking diversity in the media as a result of the monopolization of said media. His most basic solution is spot on, break up the monopolies. Rep. Hinchey’s legislation merely addresses media monopolization but I think misses the very simple crux of the problem. While it would be preferable to see more “fairness” and “balance”, who decides just what that is? This could take us down a slippery slope indeed. We don’t need yet another army of bureaucrats determining what is fair, what is balanced, running statistical analysis to determine conservative vs. liberal percentages. We don’t want to go from corporate control of the media organizations to government control of media information. Government has a critical function to the solution but it’s not replacing deregulation of commerce with over-regulation of free political speech. We’ve already got an undemocratic institutionalized “two-party” political system. Should we now institutionalize “two-party” political speech? Some of the comments from Ian’s post were a bit dismissive of the whole idea of a “fairness” doctrine but not for the reason I’ve stated. The demise of the MSM (if it ultimately happens) should be welcomed if we truly are to experience a renaissance created by a free, open, egalitarian and democratic online communication community(s). The growth of the internet and those participating both as consumers and creators of information and ideas should give us all great hope. There are however no guarantees that the internet will remain free and open, just as predicting the demise of the MSM is premature.

The signing of the Communications Act of 1996 was probably the most destructive legislation signed by former president Clinton. It’s highly doubtful that Clinton saw a fascist media future when signing this un-democratic legislation; however, repealing it would be the simplest first step in reversing the 10 year slide. It is that simple, repeal the Communications Act of 1996 and bust up all the monopolies. We could go even a bit further than the pre Communications Act era. Apart from limiting the number of media outlets controlled by any one company, non media corporations should be required to divest their ownership of all media holdings. Under such an environment, a fairness doctrine would organically thrive amid the plethora of competing independent organizations at a myriad of local, regional and national levels. We must embrace the true American spirit which guarantees and protects the freedom of markets to all people and communities not the selling off of public space (including our airwaves) to a handful of 21st century information robber barons.

In short, we are encouraged by the current rise in online networked communication. Never before have so many individuals and communities had the ability to communicate and share ideas so openly and freely. However, this alone does not guarantee a more democratic future.

We want to believe the progressive seers’ predictions of the demise of the MSM at their own hands. The struggle for Network Neutrality should give the optimistic hopefuls great pause. It may well be the ultimate factor in determining whether we slip into permanent tyranny or continue our electronic renaissance. I should not think we would “put all our hopeful eggs in one basket”. The traditional media may not decay and die off at the vine as some assume, but evolve into something we wouldn’t even recognize today. We should demand and struggle for freedom and democracy everywhere, at all times, in all our institutions. Do not be swayed by the high-sounding “ideals” of this legislation, for it is a fool’s gold. Unfortunately, many on the Left have already been enticed by its glimmer and shine. The true libertarians (those who believe in the fundamental principals of inalienable rights and universal liberty) will come down hard against this. We would be wise to listen to their arguments.

The “Left” can be every bit as despotic as the “Right”, just ask the Venezuelans. We should be ever diligent that we don’t replace King George with an Emperor Chavez.

Those of us who consider ourselves Progressives should embrace what Stirling Newberry has called, “New Liberalism”, a cosmopolitan [r]epublicanism reflecting Jefferson’s universal egalitarian democratic principals. The MORA bill is undemocratic, potentially repressive, and could ultimately replace one “fascist situation” with another.

This article is cross-posted at The Atlantic Community: Transatlantic Perspectives on America

AT&T Merger Contains First Net Neutrality Guidelines

Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:07:58 -0800

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

PODCAST: Ben Scott On AT&T's Net Neutrality Defeat

Fri, 29 Dec 2006 19:24:20 -0800

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.

As A Few Commenters . . .

Fri, 29 Dec 2006 11:23:52 -0800

. . . 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!

AT&T Caves In On Net Neutrality

Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:59:44 -0800

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.

"Internet On The Cheap"

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:03:20 -0800

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.

More Critical Now Than Ever

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 11:15:59 -0800

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!

Tech News

Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:47:28 -0800

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.

This and more yet to come from the electronics world of trade magazines. Some of the stuff is mind boggling, definitely Orwellian and very scary. How on earth did we ever make it through the Cold War without someone pushing the button.

Please Save Free Markets From the Right Wing, "Telecom Edition"

Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:06:54 -0700

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

Companies that use the internet to sell to customers (which includes any company which uses the web to communicate with its customers) will be charged by these companies most of the profit of the relationship with those customers. If they don't like it, they are welcome to go completely out of business, rather than just have low profits.

And since those numbers will be set at a relatively high number, a large minority of companies which rely on the interent will simply find that the profit margin necessary to pay is more than they can afford, and will go out of business.

That's what monopoly profits are about. If a car has a median economic value of X and you have a monopoly or oligopoly on selling cars then you set the price of a car as 90% of X. A lot of marginal people won't be able to afford them, but plenty of people will, and you'll make as much as possible from them.

This works best when there is no substitue or competitor.

So, in an industry where you can't escape (if you want broadband you will buy it from us or from the cable company in your region and no one else and no, there is no substitute since municipal wifi is being made illegal state by state), the drive is always towards monopoly or oligopoly.

Thus, to keep a free market, requires government intervention. One way this works is by making sure companies don't get too big. The second is by mandating competition. For example, old style dial-up internet access was competitive and cheap because the government forced the phone companies to allow third parties to resell time on their lines and to sell that time at a minor markup from cost. Same thing with why long distance charges went down so much. Anyone old enough to remember when a twenty minute call to the opposite coast was bloody expensive? I sure am. The reason it was so expensive is the phone company had a monopoly. The reason it got cheap is that the old phone company got broken up and forced to allow competition.

And, step by step, that period of competition has been ending. The monopoly has been coming back.

And in large part it's because free market fundamentalists think that a free market is any market the government isn't interfering in, not a market where a market is kept free from those who would use monopoly power to end competition so that they can extract monopoly profits.

Free markets are great things.

One day, perhaps we'll have some.

But not in telecom.

Schumer Comes Out For Net Neutrality

Mon, 28 Aug 2006 14:33:01 -0700

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!

Stoller's latest on Net Neutrality

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 12:28:14 -0700

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.

Amanda Country?

Wed, 12 Jul 2006 20:02:05 -0700

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 On Stevens

Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:54:22 -0700

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.

Net Neutrality and Information Security

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 18:49:18 -0700

A thoughtful post from a sysadmin who is convinced that the pro-neutrality wave would leave ISPs unable to regulate inappropriate traffic. I think he is reaching beyond the draft language I've read, but let's hear him out:

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 Stevens (R-AK) on the Internet -- Techno Version

Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:24:30 -0700

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 question, please go and see Amanda... The Real Grassroots Media Response!