Verizon got caught blocking pro-choice text messages on Wednesday. The phone company backpedaled on Thursday and lifted the ban. It was a simple glitch a Verizon spokesman declared, and they felt really, really bad about it.

Today, Verizon is in full damage control, hoping this cloud will blow over in time for its next assault on free speech.

But apologies aren’t cutting it anymore. Verizon’s censorship of the national pro-choice organization NARAL is just the latest example in a laundry list of phone company efforts to block, filter or interfere with the free flow of information on cell phones and the Internet.

Rep. Dingell: Verizon must stop discriminating

In August, AT&T censored a live webcast of a Pearl Jam concert just as lead singer Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush. AT&T said this was a glitch and then scrambled to cover their tracks.

Earlier in the year, both Verizon and AT&T were caught handing over private customer phone records to the National Security Agency. The phone companies first denied it and then started a secret campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits.

Getting Our Message Through

This pattern of abuse shows that powerful phone companies cannot be trusted to safeguard our basic freedoms. The democratic principles of free speech and open communication are too important to be entrusted to corporate gatekeepers. Whether it’s liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, pro-choice or pro-gun, the phone companies can’t pick and choose what messages get through.

Thankfully, a few leaders in Congress have had it with phony apologies from phone companies. Rep. John Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, reacted to Verizon’s ban – and reversal – with strong words: “I am particularly concerned by [Verizon’s] ability and apparent willingness to interfere when customers choose to receive legitimate and legal communications from an organization…I ask Verizon to decisively state that it will no longer discriminate against any legal content its customers request from any organization.”

Sen. Dorgan: Protect network neutrality

Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts said that consumers not phone companies elect to receive wireless text messages, “so the blocking of such messages by a corporate gatekeeper was deeply concerning.” Markey urged Verizon and other phone companies “to ensure that their company policies do not interfere with the delivery of any lawful content, nor discriminate on the basis of who the sender of such messages may be.”

“Verizon may have reversed its initial decision in this case, and I’m glad they did. But the fact that they were willing and able to take their initial action is very troublesome,” Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota told eWeek. “The network service providers often claim that the effort to ensure network neutrality is a solution in search of a problem, but this is fresh evidence that the problem is real and with us now,” Dorgan said. “We need to protect network neutrality by law.”

We Need Policies Not Apologies

Indeed, the blocking of text messages and interfering with Web traffic is perfectly legal under the current rules – a regulatory offspring of some of the most intense phone company lobbying in history.

Censorship by AT&T and Verizon shows us what we can expect in a future if these lobbyists are successful – and network gatekeepers lock up their full control of both Internet and wireless markets.

Much is at stake. This week, Verizon squelched free speech. Before they’re forced to apologize for another glitch, we need to put in place laws that protect our rights not only to speak out on the streets, but on the Internet, on cell phones — everywhere.

We’ve just been handed another view of Verizon’s gatekeeper tendencies with a report Wednesday night that the company’s wireless arm is blocking pro-choice text messages.

According to the New York Times, Verizon Wireless has rejected Naral Pro-Choice America efforts to use Verizon’s mobile text-message program to communicate to its membership.

What free speech looks like Take Action Now to Stop the Gatekeepers (Photo courtesy of gizmodo)

Such text messaging is an important new tool for advocacy organizations seeking to educate and alert their members. Verizon decision to block this new form of political speech interferes with its users’ right to get information that they choose to receive.

The move gives off a familiar scent — and puts Verizon in the same league with its cohorts at AT&T, who in August censored the live Webcast of a Pearl Jam performance that included criticism of President George Bush.

The truth is that whenever given the choice, phone companies will opt to discriminate against content they don’t like. Such efforts to stem the free flow of information should be a wake up call for anyone concerned about phone company plans to begin filtering Internet content.

Verizon and AT&T routinely rail against Net Neutrality as a “solution in search of a problem.” They swarm Washington with lobbyists offering promises never to interfere with the free flow of online content. And then they lobby for new laws that will allow them to do just that.

AT&T and Verizon share a history of breaking trust with the public, including handing over customer phone records to the government — and then seeking immunity from prosecution for doing so; promising to deliver services to underserved communities and then skipping town; pledging never to interfere with the free flow of information while hatching plans with the likes of Cisco and Viacom to build and deploy technology that will spy on online traffic.

Earlier this month, Verizon filed suit against the FCC for trying to pry open the Wireless market to more consumer choice and competition. In Verizon’s myopic view, consumers should never benefit from the free market — and especially not those who are locked into their draconian wireless contracts.

The bottom line is never trust Verizon or AT&T at their word. Phone companies act in bad faith toward the public and will do whatever they can get away with — including sacrificing their users’ freedom to choose — to advance their financial interests.

The Verizon network crowd that famously shadows users wherever they go has now taken on an Orwellian cast. No, Verizon, we don’t want your mob to surround us. We simply want you to get out of our way.

= = = =
Sept 27 UPDATE:

Let the backpedaling begin. Verizon Wireless just announced that it has dropped its ban on text messages from NARAL one day after news of their censorship was reported by the New York Times.

“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect,” Verizon spokesman Jeffrey Nelson said in a statement, adding that the earlier decision was an “isolated incident.”

Don’t believe it. This gives us a dim view at the gatekeeping mindset of phone companies — and what we might expect in a future where the likes of AT&T and Verizon are handed control of the free flow of information. It’s time Congress reaffirmed its commitment to protecting free speech over all 21st Century communications – on the Internet, on cell phones, on the streets, everywhere.

In a guest blog post, Sen. John Kerry asks for your ideas to repair America’s broadband failures and deliver a fast, open and affordable Internet for everyone. Respond to the Senator by commenting in the thread below. Senator Kerry will circle back to address some of your comments and report on developments in Washington.

By Sen. John Kerry

If you talk to anyone in Washington, there’s no disagreement that high-speed Internet access is critical to our economic competitiveness, and that a robust and competitive broadband market is key to an affordable and readily available Internet.

Guest Blog Post by Sen. John Kerry Join the debate

For small business, it is critical for the growth of their businesses and the creation of jobs. But everyone agreeing that something’s important doesn’t get the ball rolling in Washington, and there’s been precious little actual progress toward improving broadband penetration recently.

That’s why on Wednesday I will chair a hearing to explore the impact of a lack of adequate broadband access on our nation’s small businesses. We’ll be looking for ways to move closer to making broadband accessible and affordable for every American and every business. We’ll hear from advocates for greater broadband penetration (including Free Press’ own Ben Scott), and 2 FCC commissioners will be there, as well. You can watch the hearing live at http://sbc.senate.gov.

Speak Out About Universal Access

And, in addition to watching, please put in comments below your own thoughts, recommendations, and plans to improve broadband penetration. You spoke loudly about the need for new competition as the FCC considered spectrum policy. And you had great success.

So let’s keep your contributions flowing as we try to get a better Internet in this country. What are your ideas for helping the small businesses and all Americans get faster Internet access?

As activists on this issue, I know you don’t have to hear the statistics: more than 60 percent of the country does not subscribe to broadband service — many because they don’t have access to broadband Internet service or simply can’t afford it. Even in my home state of Massachusetts, a nationwide leader in technological innovation, broadband still has only reached about 46 percent of the public — and that’s the fourth-best rate in the country!

It’s almost hard to wrap your head around the fact that 7 years into this century, more Americans than not have either no Internet access at all or are still stuck on dial-up. It seems like so long ago that the buzzword was the “information super-highway,” but much of America is still bouncing down a country lane. That is just unacceptable.

Restoring America as a Broadband Leader

America’s Internet speeds lag badly behind universal standards. The birthplace of the personal computer and the Internet now has far worse broadband penetration than Europe and Japan. Without national broadband access, we’re throwing sand in the gears of our economy, placing a technological ceiling of job growth, innovation and economic production.

Small businesses — the backbone of our economy — won’t be able to fairly compete. The problem is especially bad in rural areas, and those are some of the areas most in need of economic development in this country.

Some experts estimate that universal broadband would add $500 billion to our economy and create 1.2 million jobs. We need to make universal deployment a national priority to keep America hooked into the increasingly fast global economy, but we can’t get that deployment without competition in the broad-band market.

Let’s Start the Conversation Here and Now

We need a national broadband strategy with a strong federal regulatory framework to encourage competition; companies won’t get there on their own. Competition spurs innovation, enhances service and reduces prices. And while we’re at it, we need to make efficient and widely available use of the spectrum, a valuable public asset. Much of our spectrum is underutilized, shelved and hoarded by selfish incumbents. Revisions to our spectrum policy must break open the locked portions of our spectrum to maximize that national resource. From drafting “white spaces” legislation to supporting fair spectrum policy, I’ve advanced and supported a list of measures designed to correct these market failures and increase broadband access.

It’s way past time for the country to get serious about this. President Bush has promised national broadband by 2007, and we are inexcusably, tremendously, scandalously short of that goal. Previous generations put a toaster in every home and a car in every driveway as signs of economic progress. To stay competitive, we should strive to do the same with nationwide broadband. Our economy, our businesses and our families are counting on us to deliver.

So, remember to put your recommendations below, and I’ll try to circle back after the hearing with another post about what I learned at the hearing and from all of you.

= = = = =
SEP 27 UPDATE FROM SEN. KERRY
= = = = =

Dear all:

Sen. John Kerry

Verizon Wireless, America’s second largest mobile phone service, is suing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over its recent decision to unlock cell-phones from restrictive carrier agreements.

The FCC decision, limited to cellphone use on the 700 megahertz band “C block,” had been heralded as a landmark move by the FCC — one that would benefit consumers by unshackling mobile phones and bringing competition and innovation into the wireless devices marketplace.

In reality, it was a small step on the long road to breaking up the anti-competitive, anti-consumer oligopoly that controls nearly every level of the wireless marketplace: devices, services, networks and applications.

Send Lawyers, FUD and Money

Evil-doers (photo courtesy of gizmodo)

Yet even such a minor gesture towards consumers was enough to unleash Verizon’s lawyers.

In a Monday court filing at the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, Verizon claimed that the FCC decision was “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence and otherwise contrary to law.”

It also accuses the Commission of exceeding its authority under the 1934 Communications Act, the U.S. Constitution and the Administrative Procedure’s Act, without offering further detail.

Reading between the lines we see a brazen effort by Verizon to use the courts to deprive consumers of choice in America’s wireless marketplace.

Locking in a Frozen Business Model

America lags far behind other technologically developed countries. A lack of competition has left wireless companies complacent and stifled innovation. At the moment a consumer can’t use his or her cellphone with other wireless carriers, and many of the devices themselves are “crippled” by carriers so they can’t perform to their full potential

“Many consumers feel trapped having bought an expensive device or having been locked into a long-term contract with significant penalties for switching,” Rep. Ed Markey said during a July House Subcommittee hearing on wireless freedom.

This system has left the U.S. generations behind the rest of the developed world, a failure that prompted New York Times blogger David Pogue to call American carriers “calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts.”

“For some reason I have never been able to understand, I have to ask permission of Verizon Wireless to attach a computer or the computers that they now call phones to their wireless networks,” Jason Devitt, co-Founder and CEO of Skydeck testified during the Markey hearing. “I have to ask their permission to run applications and services on those phones.”

Half Gestures in Small Slices

The FCC’s July 31 order was meant to remedy this. In a four-to-one vote the agency moved to follow the “Carterfone” provisions that were imposed on the AT&T monopoly in a groundbreaking 1968 telecommunications decision.

Life before Carterfone

Prior to Carterfone, AT&T controlled every phone on its network, as wireless providers do today. The 1968 ruling pried opened the devices marketplace so that numerous new phone products — including answering machines, fax machines, cordless phones, and early computer modems — could be introduced by other manufacturers.

Applying Carterfone rules to the wireless marketplace could open the market for a similar revolution in gadgets while freeing up users to bring their handheld devices with them from one carrier to another. But the FCC order only applied to a slice of the 700 MHz band.

The FCC’s move was praised in the trade press, even though it was a “half gesture” towards consumer and public interest advocates who have been calling for rules to foster innovation and create real open access standards across the entire spectrum.

But as with any change to the system, no matter how small, it posed a creeping threat to those that now dominate the marketplace.

And that’s why Verizon sent in their lawyers.

As the mercury soared in August, SavetheInternet.com members hit the pavement to visit members of Congress and amplify nationwide calls for Net Neutrality.

All told this year we have held 60 meetings with members of Congress. This work has been bolstered by hundreds of thousands of letters sent to Washington in support of open, affordable and universal Internet access.

Rep. Waxman (D-Cal.) gets the message

The cornerstone of this effort is Net Neutrality — the baseline protection that stops government and corporate gatekeepers from filtering and favoring Web traffic.

In their meetings, Net Neutrality supporters urged their elected representatives to join the open Internet agenda by supporting Net Neutrality legislation and our big-picture campaign to free America’s Internet from the control of phone and cable giants.

Telcos Shouldn’t Limit Freedom

“We made it clear that the purpose of Net Neutrality was to maintain equality on the Internet for small businesses and for individuals,” Kay Bradley of Itasca told Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Illinois). “It’s not to allow these big corporations to use pricing and degrees of speed to limit others from being treated equally.”

“Over and over I stressed that it was up to the courts and Congress to set the parameters for free speech, not the Telcos,” Norm Cimon of La Grande told staffers for Rep. Greg Walden (R-Oregon). “Their business models demand absolute control of a resource like Internet. This is antithetical to that freedom.”

With Rep. Wilson (R-N.Mex.), a Strong Supporter

“I explained that the loss of Net Neutrality would have devastating effects on many different people and organizations in Southeastern Ohio,” Mark Stone of Zanesville told a representative for Congressman Zack Space (D-Ohio).

Stone sits on the board of the Eastside Community Ministry, which uses the Internet for outreach and assistance to community members in crisis. “I am glad I could participate in this issue and look forward to being involved in the future,” he said.

“These efforts by all of us do make a difference,” said Free Press Online Community Organizer Ira Horowitz.

“They remind politicians and regulators in Washington that Net Neutrality is a concept that resounds beyond the Beltway – that millions of Americans simply want our leaders to listens to us and not just the lobbyists and shills who crowd the halls outside their offices.”

Washington’s Toxic Byproduct

Bad legislation is the toxic byproduct of a system that lets companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast spend hundreds of millions of dollars to distort the debate, dictate policy and force their narrow agenda upon our democratic process.

The only thing way we can counter moneyed interests is through sheer numbers of people who are actively signing petitions, making donations, writing letters and speaking out before their members of Congress.

There is more work to be done in 2007 and beyond. Making an open and neutral Internet accessible to everyone is among the most essential work of our time.

We must continue to press our leaders for sound public policies that help, not hurt, us.

Net Neutrality supporters today submitted a FOIA request to the Department of Justice to shed light on their recent hit job against Net Neutrality.

Gonzales: Mum for Now

The request, submitted by Free Press, the media reform group that coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition, seeks to uncover whether industry lobbyists or White House politics had a hand in the Justice Department’s unusual, and unusually late, action.

On Sept. 6, the FCC received an ex parte filing nearly two months after the FCC’s formal comment period on Net Neutrality had closed, raising significant questions about timing and intent. The filing encouraged the FCC to allow phone and cable companies to filter Web traffic and wall off parts of the Web for those that pay an extra toll.

Prying Open Justice

“We want to know what motivated the Department of Justice to oppose Net Neutrality this late in the process,” said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press and author of the request.

“The filing lacks any evidence of serious investigation into this critical issue and fits into a pattern of politically motivated decisions coming out of the Justice Department. We want to know if the Bush administration’s lawyers reached out to any of the thousands of groups, businesses or individuals who support Net Neutrality — or if they only talked to industry lobbyists at AT&T and Verizon.”

The DOJ ruling raises legitimate concern that powerful corporate and White House gatekeepers are working together to dismantle Internet freedoms and impose their will upon the Web.

Ties Between the White House and AT&T?

The Justice Department filing parroted phone and cable industry arguments against Net Neutrality. It’s also part of an emerging pattern of collusion between the White House and those companies that control access to high-speed Internet service for more than 96 percent of residential users in America.

In late 2006, the DOJ’s antitrust division rubber-stamped AT&T’s takeover of BellSouth — the largest telecommunications merger in history — without seeking any consumer protections. The FCC ultimately required AT&T to respect Net Neutrality for two years as a condition of approving the deal.

Last month the U.S. Director of intelligence revealed that the government and AT&T had conspired in far-reaching efforts to spy on Americans without legal warrant — efforts for which the Bush administration is now seeking to give immunity from prosecution to AT&T and other phone companies.

Lastly, the filing came during Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ final days at the helm of Justice – raising concerns that the departing Attorney General was seeking to deliver last-minute favors for White House allies.

Short Changing the Public on Universal Access

The Bush administration has fallen well short of its goal of universal access to the Internet by 2007, instead opting for policies that support the duopoly of cable and telephone companies and stifle free market competition.

Actions taken against privacy and the open Internet by AT&T, Verizon and the Bush administration are precisely why we need to make Net Neutrality the law. The lack of broadband competition has given giant companies like AT&T enormous power to advance their own interests — at a huge public expense.

By replacing duopoly control with healthy competition on open and free networks we can achieve universal and affordable high-speed access for everyone. Net Neutrality would protect Americans from the types of Internet gatekeeping favored by the White House and their phone and cable allies.

Today’s FOIA request could dig up more evidence of efforts in Washington to dismantle basic Web freedoms and distort the Internet for financial and political gain. Sunlight — of course — is the best disinfectant. It’s now up to the Justice Department to come clean with the facts.

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition just received a parting gift from Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

In a Thursday filing to the Federal Communications Commission, Gonzales’ Department of Justice urged the agency to oppose Net Neutrality — the principle that all Internet sites should be treated equally.

Last-minute favors for friends in Texas

The DOJ stated that broadband companies like AT&T should be able to erect toll booths and filter traffic — upending the even playing field that has made the Web an unrivaled engine of democratic discourse and new ideas.

The DOJ ruling once again proves the point: Powerful corporate and government gatekeepers are working together to dismantle Internet freedoms and impose their will upon the Web.

While Gonzales’ feckless reign at Justice is near an end, his legacy at the department is becoming clear: The DOJ has established itself as a friend to the powerful and enemy to the basic freedoms that Americans once took for granted.

As Gonzales slinks back to Texas, he is merely pulling last-minute favors for friends in high places. This week’s filing reeks of the same sort of cronyism that has left a slime trail wherever the attorney general has gone.

Going AWOL on Internet Freedom

In October 2006, the DOJ went AWOL in its duty to protect consumers and competition when it rubber-stamped AT&T’s bid to gobble up BellSouth. It was left to the FCC to step in and restore Net Neutrality safeguards to the massive merger.

When AT&T was accused of illegally tapping its customers’ lines, it was DOJ lawyers that moved in under the cover of night with an attempt to dismiss the suit.

It was late last month that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell admitted the extent to which the government and AT&T had conspired in far-reaching efforts to spy on Americans without legal warrant. The Bush administration is now pushing for immunity from prosecution for telecom firms that eavesdrop on customers.

AT&T has long sought to use “deep packet inspection” tools to sift Internet user content. The company has already “demoed” this technology to the RIAA and MPA as part of a plan to scour the Web for file sharing that doesn’t conform to the industry’s draconian interpretation of copyright.

Without Net Neutrality protections, it was only a matter of time before phone companies and government used this same technology to spy on the everyday activities of Net users.

Parroting Ma Bell

Thursday’s filing by a lame duck Attorney General is instructive in this context. According to public interest lawyer Harold Feld of Media Access Project, the DOJ document reads like the “Cliffsnotes version” of AT&T’s own anti-Net Neutrality filing.

“The filing parrots the industry arguments that adopting a rule that would prevent telephone and cable companies from monitoring and filtering internet traffic would harm investment and innovation,” Feld writes, “despite mounting evidence from Europe and Asia that the opposite is true.”

Indeed, the DOJ filing uses hollow industry rhetoric about market forces to provide cover for more nefarious aims. According to the filing:

Other proposals would require interconnection, open access and structural separation of companies offering both Internet access services or transmission and content or applications deliverable over the Internet.

The Department submits, however, that free market competition, unfettered by unnecessary government regulatory restraints is the best way to foster innovation and development of the Internet.

This is utter nonsense. The DOJ knows, as does anyone paying attention to American broadband, that there is no “free market competition” or consumer choice when high speed Internet services are controlled by so few.

Open Internet = Free Market

Free market competition is exactly what we need. To get it, we must move beyond the broadband duopoly that has left America far behind the rest of the world in services and connectivity.

Moreover, we need to safeguard Internet traffic from the types of surveillance and “content shaping” now being deployed by these same companies.

Net Neutrality should be the cornerstone of any national broadband plan. It frees the types of economic innovation and competition that have been a hallmark of the Internet’s development.

Net Neutrality guarantees that each of us gets an equal voice and equal choice without meddling from the likes of Gonzales and his friends at Ma Bell.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.

And when it comes to broadband, Tokyo is a long way from Little Rock.

The Japanese enjoy broadband speeds that are up to 30 times faster than what’s available here at a far lower cost. This faster, cheaper, universal broadband access – according to an excellent article in today’s Washington Post – “is pushing open doors to Internet innovation that are likely to remain closed for years to come in much of the United States.”

To the Japanese, our “high-speed” Internet service doesn’t look much different from dial-up:

The speed advantage allows the Japanese to watch broadcast-quality, full-screen television over the Internet, an experience that mocks the grainy, wallet-size images Americans endure.

Ultra-high-speed applications are being rolled out for low-cost, high-definition teleconferencing, for telemedicine — which allows urban doctors to diagnose diseases from a distance — and for advanced telecommuting to help Japan meet its goal of doubling the number of people who work from home by 2010.

Open Secrets

What’s the secret of Japan’s success? Open access.

Less than a decade ago, DSL service in Japan was slower and pricier than in the United States. So the Japanese government mandated open access policies that forced the telephone monopoly to share its wires at wholesale rates with new competitors. The result: a broadband explosion.

Not only did DSL get faster and cheaper in Japan, but the new competition actually forced the creaky old phone monopoly to innovate. As the Post explains:

Competition in Japan gave a kick in the pants to Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp. (NTT), once a government-controlled enterprise and still Japan’s largest phone company. With the help of government subsidies and tax breaks, NTT launched a nationwide build-out of fiber-optic lines to homes, making the lower-capacity copper wires obsolete.

“Obviously, without the competition, we would not have done all this at this pace,” said Hideki Ohmichi, NTT’s senior manager for public relations.

Made in America

If this quaint idea of “competition” seems familiar, that’s because America invented “open access” policies in the first place. And open access worked for decades to bring lower prices and more choices in long-distance phone service and dial-up Internet access.

The Japanese first adopted open access because they were worried about falling behind us. But under pressure from our own phone and cable monopolists, the Bush administration abandoned open access – and the fundamental protections for Net Neutrality along with it.

Now they’re standing idly by as America drops further and further behind the rest of the world in every measure of broadband progress.

But instead of recognizing their mounting failures and charting a new course (or really, just getting back on the old one), our policymakers prefer to shoot the messenger.

Left Behind

Which bring us to Little Rock.

On Tuesday, Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor hosted a public hearing on high-speed Internet access. Rural groups, educators and librarians turned out to decry the lack of broadband service and high-tech opportunities in their communities.

“We have not successfully transitioned into the information age, and I would contend a lot of that is because we’re not delivering broadband to our people,” testified Rex Nelson of the Delta Regional Authority, according to a story in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “Having access to broadband in even the most rural areas of our country is as important as getting that electricity to them and air conditioning to them back in the 1940s and the 1950s.”

Also on hand were FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein — two notable exceptions to the usual inside-the-Beltway blindness on broadband issues. They bemoaned America’s digital decline.

“While some have protested the international broadband penetration rankings,” Adelstein said, alluding to some of his colleagues at the Commission, “the fact is the U.S. has dropped year-after-year. This downward trend and the lack of broadband value illustrate the sobering point that when it comes to giving our citizens affordable access to state-of the-art communications, the U.S. has fallen behind its global competitors.”

Copps called the lack of a national broadband policy “tantamount to playing Russian roulette with our future.”

“Each and every citizen of this great country should have access to the wonders of communications,” Copps said. “I’m not talking about doing all these people some kind of feel-good, do-gooder favor by including them. I’m talking about doing America a favor. I’m talking about making certain our citizens can compete here at home and around the world with those who are already using broadband in all aspects of their lives.”

Bringing the benefits of broadband to all Americans would seem like a no-brainer for any politician. But if the reaction thus far from the White House and the majority at the FCC is any indication, you’d think Copps and Adelstein were speaking in Japanese.

On Tuesday evening, Google CEO Eric Schmidt went before a politely hostile industry audience to map out his company’s vision for a better Internet .

“The Internet has created this remarkable set of free markets, open competition and competitive growth. … We need to keep it free and open,” Schmidt said during a carefully worded speech sponsored by the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF). “If it goes the other way, we have got a serious problem, because this thing is really phenomenal.”

Schmidt listed four “calls to action” for the future of the Internet:

• Defending freedom of speech;
• Promoting universal broadband access;
• Protecting Net Neutrality; and
• Pushing for government transparency

These four principles are not just critical to a better Internet, Schmidt said, but are the “basic principles” driving the great American experiment.

Net Neutrality Gives Everybody a Choice

“We also care a lot about Net Neutrality,” Schmidt said. “Whether you agree with me or not, you would agree with the following principle: No entity that controls the last mile, whether it’s a telco or a cable company or, by the way, a local government since they’re doing this stuff, too, should be able to control the content that flows over it. Again it’s another important architectural principle to create this dynamic that is so powerful.”

Among the Progress and Freedom Foundation’s corporate sponsors are telephone giants (AT&T and Verizon) cable companies (Comcast and Time Warner); and cell phone companies (T-Mobile and Sprint) who have actively voiced their opposition to open Internet principles.

Together, these entrenched interest pay PFF more than $3 million each year. In exchange the “think tank” promotes positions favoring corporate gatekeepers over Web users, and content “shaping” over the free flow of information. Google also contributes to PFF, though evidently not enough. (Note: SavetheInternet.com takes no corporate money whatsoever.)

Understandably, some on Tuesday bristled at Schmidt’s remarks. Representatives from the Heritage Foundation, Discovery Institute, U.S. Telecom Association, T-Mobile and Verizon stood to challenge Google’s Net Neutrality and Open Access positions.

“Our concern is that any time you have a situation where there is not a choice, you can end up with the wrong outcome,” Schmidt replied. “Let’s be honest and say that the world is a better place when everybody has a choice.”

Regulation for Whom?

One attendee — a member of the Darwin-challenged Discovery Institute — sought to argue that the Internet be completely free of regulation.

The real question isn’t: “Should Congress regulate the Internet?” There always will be regulations. The real question is: “Whom will the regulations benefit?” Without forward-thinking broadband policy and real competition, America’s high-speed Internet services are falling dangerously behind those of other developed nations.

The phone companies represented by many at the PFF event have held Washington’s policy process in their grip for far too long. They are among the most prolific spenders on Washington lobbyists, campaign contributions, PR firms and paid junkets — all with the intent to create special rules that are written in their favor. For all their corrosive talk about “deregulation,” the cable and telephone giants actually lobby for regulations to:

• Protect their market monopolies and duopolies
• Stifle new entrants and technologies in the broadband marketplace
• Increase their control over the content that travels over the Web

PFF claims to ground its work in principles of “limited government, free markets and individual sovereignty.” How then do they justify taking money from corporations — and adopting positions — that have a demonstrably opposite effect?

We’ll leave that question to the likes of Professor Larry Lessig, who plans to devote the next decade to investigating the corruption of our democracy by moneyed interests.

Free Choice v. Telco Control

What’s clear is that the phone company scheme to inject gatekeepers and toll booths into the Internet marks a fundamental shift in the neutral way the Internet has always worked.

We caught a glimpse of this earlier this month when AT&T censored Pearl Jam and other bands that didn’t quite meet their standard of “Internet freedom.” AT&T and Verizon’s whole business model has been built upon a type of content control that’s anathema to the free flowing Internet. They stand in opposition to efforts to empower people to make their own decisions and to protect their privacy in doing so.

Such gatekeeping takes away the most basic and crucial tenet of the Internet — our freedom to connect online to a Web site of our choosing. It also tips the Web’s even playing field to favor larger corporations, while handicapping the Internet’s true innovators: outsiders and startups who can’t afford to buy in to the network provider’s protection racket.

There are many valid concerns about Google’s own ambitions for the Internet. But the search giant seems to be standing up for the basic freedoms that have made the Internet a great engine for free speech, economic innovation and social change.

We wish we could say the same for the phone companies and other special interests that float coin-operated think tanks like the Progress and Freedom Foundation.

AT&T’s culture of control has taken a frightening new turn.

Some may remember when the company’s black rotary phone was the only device allowed on its telephone network. Today, the communications giant is banking that a world without Net Neutrality will allow them to exert similar control over another network — the free flowing Internet.

AT&T’s Vision for the Future of the Internet

Look no further than AT&T’s recent censorship of a Pearl Jam concert webcast, just as lead singer Eddie Vedder launched into a critique of President Bush.

AT&T’s slippery response to the resulting outcry is instructive.

Spinning Out of Control

The moment the Pearl Jam news hit the Web, AT&T’s public relations division scrambled their spokespeople and shills. In a frenzy of damage control, they fired off a series of statements. One called the move “totally against our policy — of never, ever censoring political speech.” Another declared the Pearl Jam censorship “an isolated incident” — an “unfortunate” mistake by a rogue subcontractor.

But it wasn’t long before evidence came to light of more political censorship at the hands of AT&T — involving earlier webcasts of bands like the Flaming Lips, John Butler Trio and others. (The list keeps growing)

AT&T redeployed its hacks with a “modified” public position:

“It’s not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts,” said AT&T spokeswoman Tiffany O’Brien Nels. “Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to insure that it will not happen again.”

Then on Monday a crew member involved with AT&T’s webcasts came forward, telling Wired News that he had been issued instructions to “shut it down if there was any swearing or if anybody starts getting political.”

Sounds like a censorship policy to us.

Doublespeak

So AT&T’s shills shifted gears once again. AT&T screwed up for sure, they admit, but this censorship of political speech “has absolutely nothing to do with Net Neutrality. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.”

Why should we take AT&T at their word?

Such spin needs to be held up to scrutiny. AT&T’s past is checkered with stories of breaking trust with customers — helping the NSA wiretap calls and handing over private phone records to the government, promising to deliver services to underserved communities and then skipping town, pledging never to interfere with the free flow of information online while hatching plans with the likes of Cisco, Viacom, RIAA and MPA to build and deploy technology that will spy on user traffic.

When faced with a simple Net Neutrality rule that would keep them honest, AT&T rails against the move as a “solution in search of a problem.”

They pledge “never, ever” to interfere with the free flow of information online, while touting plans to become gatekeepers to the Web — with content “shaping” technology and discriminatory business practices that would upend the level playing field that has made the Internet an engine of free speech and economic innovation.

AT&T is the ‘Problem’

“This is precisely the behavior … Net Neutrality advocates have been warning about for almost a decade,” Stanford Law Professor Larry Lessig wrote about the Pearl Jam incident. “And not just (or even most importantly) in this explicit form. Much more important are the games played more subtly, to push innovation and content in the direction that benefits AT&T.”

Internet Service Providers “believe they have the absolute right to control the content/application on those lines,” Lessig writes. If allowed to proliferate, this attitude “will be deadly for Internet innovation.”

AT&T’s censorship, whether a “mistake” or corporate policy, is a rallying point for the Internet freedom movement. The great promise of the Internet shouldn’t be left in the hands of those who confuse telling the truth with spinning for political and economic gain.

But AT&T can still make good on its promise to “never, ever” censor the Web by backing off its multimillion-dollar campaign to kill Net Neutrality.

How about it?