My Web Series Made Possible by Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality essential but must strike proper balance

Net Neutrality is essential to protect users on the Web -- I understand the concerns of some not wanting too much government control (by the way the Internet has always had Net Neutrality rules in the past -- in 2005 unfortunately the Bush FCC gutted its authority to mandate Net Neutrality and gutted Net Neutrality rules in the process -- then cable and phone companies expressed their desire in a world where Net Neutrality is not required for them to discriminate against websites like Google or services like Apple's iTunes Store that compete with cable companies own digital cable TV services -- its just a matter of striking the correct balance -- today some on the Far Right suggest the Fairness Doctrine if brought back would censor conservative speech -- there are a bunch of crazies out there in the news media right now, corporate shills, and liars spreading misinformation and smears -- Glenn Beck says more diversity and independent voices on the radio and TV would actually be bad -- that the people claiming they want more diversity just want to silence conservative talk radio and conservatives on TV news) I do want privacy and I don't want government invading my privacy online but want Net Neutrality restored.

Some say the 1996 Telecommunications Act created the duopoly telecom and cable companies have on broadband Internet access today --- sorry that is not true. The 1996 Telecommunications Act apart from its allowing more media consolidation by media companies would have done a lot of good in the market for broadband Internet access -- it mandated competition, mandated cable and phone companies resell fast Internet access at affordable wholesale prices to smaller rivals like NetZero which could in turn sell Internet more cheaply to their customers and made Net Neutrality the law. In fact for 30 plus years under both Republican and Democratic U.S. Presidencies before George W. Bush became President we had an FCC that stood up for an open, democratic and nondiscriminatory Internet. The 1996 Telecommunications Act was the vision of Congress for an open, affordable, and accessible Internet for all. They sought to guarantee broadband Internet access as a right for all Americans -- Internet is a public utility and should be a right -- everyone should be able to access fast affordable Internet regardless of whether they are rich or poor or live in urban or rural areas. They even forced the breakup of AT&T's Ma Bell system to ensure that there would be competition in the broadband Internet access market -- they didn't want AT&T a phone company that was building its own Internet network to be able to own content companies or anything and prioritize and discriminate against certain traffic flowing over its network. Distributors of Internet access should be separate from companies supplying content on the Web. Shortly after the 1996 Telecommunications Act was passed corporate special interest lobbyists from the telecom companies went straight to work complaining to Congress that it was unfair that they had to offer wholesale prices to smaller companies like NetZero -- which ate into their profits -- and it was unfair that they had to be competitive, innovate regularly and make expensive investments in upgrading their network so they can keep up with smaller players who benefited under the common sense pro consumer regulations.

When George W. Bush entered the Presidency whatever regulations the telecoms were unable to get Congress to reverse on its own they got the courts to strike down as unconstitutional or got the new Bush Administration to deregulate. When George W Bush entered office the U.S. was 4th in the world in terms of broadband Internet access penetration -- thanks to the unfortunate deregulations he pushed for the broadband Internet access market was allowed to become duopolized by large telecom and cable companies. Gradually, the U.S. began to drop behind other countries that maintained their commitment to regulations. Today ISPs providing high speed Internet services actually provide slower Internet than they advertise -- since the Bush FCC gutted Net Neutrality in 2005 (and then tried to correct their mistake in 2008 by holding Comcast accountable for violating Net Neutrality principles they also outlined they still support in 2005 -- I know this may seem confusing they said they still want ISPs to comply with Net Neutrality but they don't have to) they brought charges against Comcast in 2008 for secretly violating Net Neutrality once it came out that Comcast was doing so.

Also, if given the choice between government and corporations --the idea of big government is scary and leads too to much bureaucracy and I know the fears of government intruding our civil liberties but government is supposed to always represent the will of the public (do what's in the public's interest -- the entire public gets a say) corporations though only listen to their shareholders -- they don't care what their employees or what consumers think of them.

Businesses exist solely to make a profit for their shareholders/investors while government is supposed to serve us so I'd rather support government on this than allowing big cable and phone companies to do away with Net Neutrality -- I also support extending Net Neutrality to wireless phone carriers -- so AT&T Wireless cannot block Skype's iPhone app from running on their network. There was no technical reason for them to do so earlier and have only agreed to allow it now due to public outcry and government intervention. We should have a government that stops putting Wall Street before Main Street and listens to the interests of America's consumers and the American workforce.

Today AT&T has conceded in principle to support the idea of Net Neutrality but still don't want any rules forcing them to maintain their Internet service with non discrimination -- they suggest we remake the Web the way the U.S. existed before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s so we have a segregated Web -- with so called separate but equal legislation and policies governing the use of the Web. Without Net Neutrality large cable and phone company ISPs can decide what's on, how much it costs and how fast it downloads -- it would be a reflection of their legacy business -- Internet would be like cable TV and radio of today. Internet would no longer be vibrant town square for all of us but a cash cow for a few. The greatest thing about the Web is it allows participation and is truly democratic, open and equal. All web traffic, all websites, applications, and services are treated equally. WIthout Net Neutrality new startups online would need permission from ISPs to reach consumers.

Without Net Neutrality cable companies which also run their own Internet services in addition to offering digital cable TV would have a conflict of interest (take Comcast with their anti competitive TV Everywhere scheme saying if you want to watch TV online you have to be a Comcast Digital Cable TV subscriber -- under this pay wall structure even paid competing TV services online like Apple's iTunes Store which sells movies and TV Shows online that users can download need not apply; neither would Boxee, YouTube, or any other video on demand services online competing with Comcast) -- given Comcast's willingness to merge with NBC Universal -- allowing a distributor of TV and Internet service to own the content that flows through its pipes would be a conflict of interest and they could prioritize and discriminate against other content. Remember, how at the end of each year digital cable TV providers have to renew their contract with cable TV and broadcast networks and how last time FOX was demanding huge price increases which Time Warner Cable said they didn't want to pay because they'd have to pass on higher costs to their customers but ultimately reached an agreement with FOX. Well if Comcast owned NBC Universal they could provide NBC Universal content completely free if they wanted to their Comcast Digital Cable customers but could still insist other providers pay NBC Universal each year licensing fees for permission to air that content -- and each year NBC Universal could demand higher fees from those other providers.

The cost of cable has always been going up and cable companies don't like competition from cheaper more affordable solutions. They are trying to restrict user's Internet bandwidth -- rather if we still had a competitive broadband Internet access market they would be required to upgrade their networks occasionally and allow more bandwidth usage. So I support Net Neutrality but understand the concerns of some critics not wanting government to invade their privacy online or too control the Web too much. Without Net Neutrality though ISPs can censor speech online in the U.S. like the Chinese government censors speech on the Web for people in China. We cannot abandon an open Internet.

It is worth noting that every time a new transformative technology with the power to give a voice to the voiceless emerged in America there was a great moment of hope -- we saw it when radio was invented during the 1920s and 30s, Television in the 1950s, Cable Television in the 1980s. Each time media moguls send their hired lobbyists to Washington to co-op and monetize the technologies before they get off the ground. Each time the public had no idea laws were being passed in their name behind closed doors that were killing the dream. This time we have a tool though that not only speaks truth to power, it protects truth from power. We can use the Internet to save the Internet. We know the future will go down of one two paths -- the first is an open Internet where any small startup with a good idea can make it big (without Net Neutrality Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube could not have been possible) the second is a closed Internet that looks like radio or cable TV that represents corporations legacy business -- where status quo is king and censorship can occur. Internet is no longer a vibrant town square for all of us but a cash cow for a few.

This debate concerns the future of all media as in a few short years phone service (think Voice Over Internet Protocol services like Skype or Vonage), video based services with TV shows and movies, news and information can all be delivered over a high speed Internet connection. At this critical time as mentioned we must learn from history. The future of the Internet and the future of all media will either be open or closed -- its all or nothing. This is a battle between democracy and plutocracy that will occur on every street corner of the U.S. from Main Street to Wall Street to Washington D.C. The righteous path certainly is an open democratic Internet.

Former President FDR once said words as true today as they were 72 years ago -- on the eve of his successful 1936 re-election to the Presidency FDR said "We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace; business and financial monopoly, war profiteers, reckless and risky financial speculators who had begun to consider the Government of the United States as an appendage of their interests" today we know government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob. FDR got Congress to pass The New Deal because he took the fight to his opposition and never backed down and neither will we who fight for an open Internet --- because we dedicate ourselves to the fight for a democratic and open Internet that benefits every American and we won't stop the fight until we win.