Net Neutrality -- The Fight Ahead
By Tim Karr, April 7, 2010
"The Day the Internet Lost" read a full-banner headline on Huffington Post yesterday. The New York Times held a wake for the Internet reporting that Internet service providers can now "block or slow specific sites" and demand that content producers now "pay a fee to ensure delivery of material."
On Tuesday, the DC Circuit of the Federal Appeals Court took away the Federal Communications Commission's to protect our rights on the Internet. The decision has been widely reported as the end of an era for America's Internet. But what does the future hold? And what can we do to keep the Internet open and democratic?
The ruling echoes the Supreme Court's Citizens United v. FEC decision, which amounted to a judicial giveaway of our democracy to powerful corporations. Yesterday's court decision effectively hands the future of communications over to corporations like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner Cable.
This is bad news on several fronts:
Broadband Ambitions Sidelined: High-speed Internet access is a central component to our economic recovery. Putting high-speed Internet into the hands of the third of the country that now does not connect is Priority #1 of the FCC's National Broadband Plan. The court decision pulls the carpet from beneath the agency's plan, effectively leaving this essential job to companies that have failed -- by almost every international measure -- to deliver a fast and affordable services to Americans stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide.
The End of Openness: The decision could mark the beginning of America's Broadband Dark Age. The court ruled that the FCC has no right to stop carriers from developing a two-tier Internet and blocking Web content that they don't like. They've already indicated their interest in prioritizing certain content over others. As The Economist reported yesterday an ISP could simply "decide to hijack all search queries... and redirect them to its own search site so it could harvest the extra hits, even when users were attempting to use Google or other search engines." Nice!
It's Now Their Internet, Not Yours: The decision could bring us a world where Internet users no longer have control over their Internet experience -- where we have no protections against ISPs that abuse our Internet rights at will and without repercussions. Increasingly AT&T, Comcast and Verizon have sought to encroach upon user choice online. Net Neutrality is essential to keeping the future of communications in the hands of all Americans -- and preventing ISPs from picking winners and losers on the Web. We've just lost that guarantee and it's only a matter of time before the Great Encroachment begins.
But don't give up hope. There's a way out of this legal mess. The easiest route to restore an open Internet is for the FCC to simply vote to reclassify broadband under Title 2 of the Communications Act. This move would return to the agency the powers to protect consumers that it had before Bush-era deregulation struck it down.
Other remedies include a Supreme Court appeal or congressional legislation but, as Prof. Jack Balkin notes, such actions run the risk of a conservative Supreme Court that appears to favor corporations over the public interest. And a move in Congress would require 60 votes from a Senate where passing anything is nearly impossible - much less on an issue over which broadband providers like AT&T and Comcast wield a corrupting level of influence in both parties.
The FCC, however, could reclassify by a simple majority vote of commissioners. Chairman Genachowski has made protecting the open Internet a signature effort of his tenure. He has the support of the majority of FCC commissioners on that. He should now move to reclassify with a simple vote at the agency.
Moreover, the Supreme Court case has specifically said the decision to reclassify is up to the FCC, and as long as the Commission gives good reasons for its choice to do so, that action should be upheld in the courts.
Makes sense, right? That's why Free Press is pushing full throttle to embolden the FCC to reclassify in a way that allows it to protect Net Neutrality and fulfill the universal access goals envisioned in its National Broadband Plan. (You can join the action here)
In the world of wonky telecommunications policy, reclassification -- or returning the Internet to its legal status prior to Bush-era deregulation -- is tantamount to declaring World War III with the phone and cable lobby.
That's a fight that we're ready to have right now. The future of open communications depends upon it.
Free Press is a national, nonpartisan organization working to reform the media. Free Press does not support or oppose any candidate for public office. Through education, organizing and advocacy, we promote diverse and independent media ownership, strong public media and universal access to communications.
Tim Karr
Timothy Karr oversees all Free Press and Free Press Action Fund campaigns and online outreach efforts, including SavetheInternet.com and Free Press' work on public broadcasting, propaganda and journalism.
Read Tim's full bio »
Comments
Rather simple solution.
This is quite simple to solve. Everyone just call your ISP and inform them, that if they intentionally inhibit any website, in any way, for any reason, that you will be terminating service without further notice.
Well ....
You're right. That would be simple, if it weren't for one thing. More than 95% of broadband users in America have only two or fewer choices in the marketplace -- and these are most often the dominant phone or cable company. The phone and cable lobby has joined lock-step in their opposition to Net Neutrality protections. So, if you had to leave one broadband provider for another, and were luicky enough to have another choice, you'd likely land with a service that also wants to destroy an open Internet.
Simmer Down Now
While it's fun to complain and lament about how content providers like Comcast and AT&T will soon be filtering and editing content to their subscribers, it's not going to ever happen. I agree that net neutrality is important and should certainly be pursued through Congress, Tuesday's ruling from the DC Circuit actually does very little in the fight, and if anything, helps the cause.
The Opinion. What the DC Circuit did in it's opinion was limit the authority of the FCC to use its ancillary jurisdiction. The FCC was never given jurisdiction over the Internet, and thus was relying on its catchall authority to regulate anything associated with the things that it can regulate. Taken too far, that's a dangerous power. If the FCC had been successful in its argument, it might actually turn into a more dangerous enemy of net neutrality than ISPs. Even the Electronic Frontier Foundation (www.eff.org), one of the biggest proponents for net neutrality, applauds the opinion and the right decision. Fear not, the FCC can and will ultimately get authority over the Internet. When it does, it will be able to pursue the fight for a neutral Internet for all.
Big Bad Comcast? The concept that major ISPs will somehow block certain websites is somewhat ludicrous. Internet providers are in competition with one another, often significantly so in major cities. If one starts to offer a lesser product than the others, people will switch to one of the other providers. Unlike cell providers, for example, nobody cares about which ISP you have. It's very simple to unplug one ISPs cable and plug in another. Say Comcast begins to filter what content it will send to its subscribers. People who have a choice over ISPs will promptly flood to AT&T to the point where Comcast will have to revert back to a free and open service. And in the meantime, Comcast's PR firm will hate them terribly. Yes, people in rural areas without much choice will have to suffer and wait, but when the ISP loses enough of its city subscriber base, it will be hurting enough to switch back.
So what's the problem? The ruling is actually helpful in limiting the FCC authority to regulate too far using its ancillary reach. ISPs likely aren't going to be filtering Internet content anytime soon. Let's push for legal backing for net neutrality, sure. But let's not overreact and tweak out about everything. Stay the course.
Neutrality; haste; plan of attack
Without a voice we have no share of the power, and without a share of the power a share of the wealth is certainly lost and our humanity is stripped away as we are brought up struggling on the threshold with base needs and insecurity. Neutrality is really the principle of choice and choice by default. It’s a right of self determination. Without it our time and attention are stolen and we are forced to watch ads and tolerate sponsorship which quickly consolidates media and drowns out opposition and works to hold our politicians hostage. Neutrality is the same principle that is at the core of our Constitution its power sharing embodied, hard wired. It’s the seed and core principle of an Internet that was born to preserve communication under the worst of conditions. It works against the fraud that has people identify with and take pride in their own oppression. Such things cannot stand the light of increased communication and dialog. The GOP (status quo) has been in crisis and is increasingly radicalized over this.
Even given recent censorship by the Chinese State it seems a lot more trustworthy than AT&T, Time Warner and Fox. There is a real risk or even likelihood that these companies will use this ruling to prevent or reverse progressive gains in the coming election cycle. These companies like the HMOs are basically “socially useless” and represent a huge risk to the future of the people and the country. The HMO’s love to gamble and then pass along cost of their addiction and profit taking by threatening people with their very lives. In telecom and media the entire business model works on suppression, collusion, and on the creation of artificial scarcity and unnecessary metering regimes. They constantly want to charge for what is unnecessary. The also like to act as if the market were not the property of the people.
We the people are market holders and they are holders of nothing if we say so. This isn’t a matter of an unruly majority, this is a matter of a few trying to block a critical public need. These companies want all speech to be commercially underwritten, especially all political speech. They expect lock out. Sony famously said of Microsoft: They will get movies when and if we say so. This corporate culture hates collectivity because it runs counter to exploitation. They love secrecy, false claims of ownership and indemnity.
Think back:
50K gag orders issued by the Bush Administration.
AT&T Wire Tapping
Voter Fraud, stolen elections, former SC Chief Justice starting his career on voter suppression. Most SC justices to this point have been slave holders.
Rulings that find debt/money to be speech.
Rulings that find corporations to have ‘rights’
Ruling that eliminates limits on corporations trying to use other peoples money to control elections.
Filibustering civil rights legislation.
Gingrich comparing the gains in health care to civil rights passage as if Civil Rights were an atrocity.
Trying to eliminate the separation between Church and State in order to inject more dogma, division and hate.
Denying due process, trying to get rid of habeas corpus, engaging in torture (US Terrorism,) in order to silence people and their elected representatives.
Rewriting text books in Texas in a regressive way.
Lying us into a war.
Asserting everything is an issue of national security is therefore secret.
Insisting on Tort caps, the destruction of evidence and corporate immunity.
Tobacco reparations.
Think of the undue influence that some ancillary entities have on American politics and US discourse. Think of the Neo Con elements of the Israeli government and the power they have been able to exert over the US political scene. Think of Fox, where a cosmopolitan has an organization that is aimed at completely propagandizing American politics and keeping people in constant fear.
The point is not to make society safe for business but to make business serve society. The point is to make our industries and institutions contribute something for the opportunity and resources they take away. The point is to limit the aspects of commercial speech that are parasitic to speech in general and political speech in particular. There is nothing wrong with genuine product information on the other side of an ad free user generated search but there is everything wrong with a modal TV ad or a bill board that causes death, traffic and property devaluation. Currently our system of speech is largely and wrongly based on sponsorship, which in practice is censorship that holds our system of political representation hostage. Even if one doesn’t believe power can be delegated this system still acts as an effective filter even against direct action.
Enshrining the choice, making it the default and reinforcing it with proper privacy will kill the advertising, publishing and broadcast industries but these industries were already culturally and technologically obsolete.
Markets are infrastructure that without a certain minimum of regulation become mechanisms to create artificial scarcity for profit, most appeals to the market are usually an appeal to collusion. Ad a little regulation to mining and it becomes 30x safer, so what if it cost the mining companies more, they weren’t entitled to it in the first place.
Think about pharmaceuticals, we are told that Canada isn’t bright enough or moral enough to make quality pharmaceutical and that nonsense protects an industry that is based on pure unadulterated marketing. The German government found that only %1 of drugs had efficacy above chance and that was with the societal placebo in place.
If we don’t reverse this instantly we will be told that we can’t connect over seas because they don’t discriminate against so called ‘content’ and they are pirates.
Content is just communication from the past, its gets no preference. Commercial speech is not elevated speech it gets no preference and not even by much earlier more reasonable court rulings. Lets be clear, Hulu sucks, it’s the worst model possible its absolutely not free its price in political terms is infinite, we don’t want sponsorship driven media. We don’t want consoles, cable or and certainly nothing that tries to layer sponsorship atop subscription. We don’t need news (propaganda) or eye witness experts, we need communication and community. We need a low priced generic subscription that provides everything ad free with massively many redundant providers of such subscriptions across the globe. We need public backbones with public, private, cooperative media exchanges that use stuff like the “Open Streaming Platform” model. Nothing, especially not search, requires ads. Every so-called media company needs to be reduced to a totally dumb pipe with no power to influence or constrain what we look at in any way. Achieve this and among other things we will see the end of the GOP.
The final currency is attention, we are defined by what we focus on, they have not right to channelize, filter, drown out with noise or define us, this comes down to our right of self definition. When it comes to the state we will be seen as intrinsically equal and not merely created equal or equally situation or having equal opportunity.
Comcast Boycott...
Sounds like it's time to organize a Comcast Boycott... Hit them in the pocket book!
Good Idea
It's a good idea, money talks but I seem to have a pesimistic attitude towards boycotting a huge company like comcast - I just don't think it's possible. But, I do hope the internet wins in the long run!
-Matt A lover of neckties and the creator of tiepedia - how to tie a tie
FCC has no standing.
"And what can we do to keep the Internet open and democratic?"
Is the internet closed or something!??!
And what is this nonsense about democratic?
Networks are owned by private concerns.
They offer a service.
Buy it or don't.
The Neutrality argument is idiotic: that downloaders and TV watchers should have the same consideration that large business users warrant.
It's silly.
There isn't a problem with the internet.
It works just fine and is a gigantic economic engine.
Let's not turn this over to stupid Gubbmint.
It works better in private hands.
Be careful what you ask for.
Net Neutrality
Are you serious? Keep the internet in private hands? Like the editorial boards of every major newspaper? Funny how all major newspaper front pages are almost identical? And look at all the benefits we, meaning the American taxpayer, received from the private investment industry? I could have sworn that the American economy continues to slip for the average, AVERAGE American, while big business and Wall Street just keep chugging along....
Just how much are you paid to keep hawking for the big guys?
I know exactly what I'm
I know exactly what I'm asking for when I ask for Network Neutrality. A guarantee that data is equal in the eyes of the internet. This requires virtually no government involvement other than the states law- I can sue over it if this premise is broken.
A neutral internet is simply critical. Without neutrality, there would be a market for sabotaging another's ability to communicate. Just buy all the servers around your competitor and block them, then they are shut down! You could slow down or block websites that disagree with your politics. You could skew all communication and content delivery as subtly or blatantly as you want.
Don't tell me the consumer is the only thing that is considered in the free market. It's just not so. There's money to be made in tearing down the free transfer of data. Meanwhile, a neutral internet is perfectly competitive and is an excellent, stable platform for flourishing business.
From the founders of the internet to modern tech companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon, we see overwhelming support for a neutral internet from almost every informed source except from those who own the networks like cable companies and Verizon.
A counterbalanced alternative approach to Network Neutrality
We don't want an Internet regulated by the overwhelming corporate control that it has been run by. At the same time, we don't want an Internet regulated by draconian government policy and.
As a counterbalanced alternative, we need a strict, passive-aggressive framework to justify a balance between government and private sector authority rights. However, the key is that authority over physical Internet infrastructure and metaphysical IP rights must remain BALANCED between the FCC and the country's service provider oligopoly. This is the forward-thinking solution to Net Neutrality and network openness.