Will Dirty Politics Kill the Internet?
By Tim Karr, May 26, 2010
Congress just sold you out to Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.
Big phone and cable companies are so determined to dismantle consumer protections on the open Internet that they've spent millions to flip Congress against you. Earlier this week, many in Congress delivered.
On Monday, 74 House Democrats joined 37 Senate Republicans to sign an industry-written letter that tells the Federal Communications Commission to halt all efforts to protect Internet users and stop big companies from blocking Internet traffic.
Net Neutrality – the principle that would keep users in control of the Internet – was the top communications policy of President Obama when he came into office last year. Obama has repeated his support for an open Internet on several occasions since, and last summer appointed Julius Genachowski to lead the FCC and fulfill this presidential promise.
That promise has now been cast into doubt by dozens of Democrats willing to sell out their president, their constituents, and millions of Net Neutrality supporters to do the bidding of special interests.
|
The President wants it and so do millions of Americans |
Big Money vs. Common Sense
It gets even worse. The Democrats’ “do nothing” appeal would drastically undercut the FCC’s ability to carry out the National Broadband Plan and connect more people to the Internet. These Democrats are actually taking a position against bringing life-improving broadband services to rural and low-income communities.
Their letter warns Chairman Genachowski against pursuing a plan that would enable the FCC to act as a watchdog and serve the public interest over the Internet, preventing phone and cable companies from blocking access to websites and services, while promoting policies that ensure universal and affordable access.
“The uncertainty this proposal creates will jeopardize jobs and deter needed investment for years to come,” the letter says. “We urge you not to move forward with a proposal that undermines critically important investment in broadband and the jobs that come with it.”
Say what? Even the top executives at Verizon and Comcast say that the FCC’s proposal will have no impact on their investment in broadband networks. And experts overwhelmingly agree that extending broadband services to those stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide would create more jobs.
A study by the Brookings Institution and MIT estimated that a one-digit increase in U.S. per capita broadband penetration equates to an additional 300,000 jobs. If our broadband penetration were as high as a country like Denmark’s, we could provide approximately three million additional U.S. jobs.
The Dirty Little Secret
The letter is so full of misleading information that it’s hard to know where to begin.
But behind it all is one dirty little secret: Nearly every one of these representatives has accepted massive contributions from the phone and cable lobby.
Such behavior by elected officials is outrageous and unethical. Perhaps some of these representatives just didn’t know what they were signing. Or perhaps this is just business as usual -- members willing to sell out the public in exchange for campaign cash. (Is it any wonder the latest Gallup public opinion poll counts a congressional disapproval rating of 73 percent?)
But in putting their names to this letter, these members are telling us to have blind faith that phone and cable companies have the best interests of Americans in mind – and will deliver fast, open and affordable Internet services without government oversight.
That’s a huge mistake. Comcast and AT&T can no better police themselves to protect the Internet than BP can police itself to protect the oceans. We already know how that ends. The phone and cable companies must play by the rules.
In response, Free Press (my day job) is urging hundreds of thousands of people to sign our own letter telling the FCC that Congress doesn’t speak for you, President Obama or the millions of other Americans who support a fast, open and affordable Internet.
Congress can’t hand these companies control over the future of communications. The results would be disastrous.
If only more members of Congress knew that their bad deeds couldn’t be swept beneath the carpet – unnoted and unpunished. It’s time they heard from us.
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
Seriously? You really think Title II is the best way to go?
Wow. This website needs to provide information to citizens of the US as to what Title II classification really is and not your opinion on what it is and how it will effect broadband consumers. Reclassification of broadband under Title II is the worst thing that could happen. Title II will actually restrict our limits on what can and can't be done on the internet. Title II will take away our freedoms.
Broadband just needs left alone. If they want somebody to control it, create a new commission to do it. Regulate the broadband providers and not the internet itself.
So, if you don't like what
So, if you don't like what your ISP is doing to limit you, then switch ISPs. If ISPs begin limiting what you can and can't do online, another ISP will emerge that won't do those things and it will be extremely profitable.
"Net neutrality" is the biggest scam in recent years. It is a tool by the government and for the government, to regulate what you can and can't do. If your ISP does that to you, you have the ability to stop using their service.
If the government does it to you, good luck.
Net neutrality using federal government, wake up!
The US is sprinting toward a Marxist system and abandoning our free market capitalism that has given America and its people one of the highest standards of living for the middle class in the world, the people are waking up to this scam they're tired of the debt we are racking up the whole global warming hoax with its cap and trade wealth redistribution scheme and that goes for both parties and there is a real groundswell movement to return to the principles this nation was founded on and to the limitations of the enumerated powers of the Constitution on government.
This whole Internet neutrality crap being pushed by the current crop running the show in Washington needs to be rejected these people have proven they cannot be trusted and they have no respect for the wishes of the American people as they shove socialist legislation down our throats, these people cannot be trusted.
You're an idiot.
You obviously watch too much Faux News.
Do you realize that if it wasn't for government regulations there would be no electricity or phone lines in rural communities? Areas with such low population densities are not profitable for phone and electricity providers. In order to make a profit you need to have a certain number of customers per unit of cabling in order to cover the maintenance and installation costs of those lines. Your "free market" would have a solid 40% of the US population without basic utility services.
Your post is nothing more than a torrent of regurgitated buzz words ("marxist", "wealth redistribution", "socialist", etc) that you probably picked up from Glen Beck and the other sock puppets pushing Rupert Murdoc's agenda.
You may not like the government, but if you had a shred of grey matter in your skull you would at least realize that while neither the leadership of a government or a corporation can be trusted, you can at least vote for the people leading your government. You have no control what so ever over the actions or the personnel of a corporation.
you are also an idiot
you obviously watch too much csi
murdoc and your precious obama both play for team rockefeller
socialism and capitalism are two facets of the same beast
collectivism
This is such an important
This is such an important issue as are many that seem to go this way: "Congress just sold you out to...". Thanks for bringing this up! J - test prep
really nice sharing thanks
really nice sharing thanks
Time for a Revolution
Our employees in our government continue to commit mutiny against WE THE PEOPLE.
It's time to reread the First Amendment for instructions on how to peaceably take back our country from these Democratic and Republican traitors.
Does no one see the irony of
Does no one see the irony of the FCC setting out regulations for the Internet? Does no one see the irony of "Net Neutrality"? I am the Government and I am here to help you, also to control what content you can view. What makes people so dependant upon the Government? Sure, ISP's have wasted 100's of billions of dollars over the last 10 years with misleading and outright false claims of infrastructure spending, but broadband adoption increased from 15% to over 60% in the last 7 years alone, so not all of it was wasted, unlike Government spending. Pricing for bandwidth has actually gone down over the last 6 years when you factor in dollars for bytes, and 90% of US households have access to Internet connections. Look at a map, and tell me how "easy" it is to connect everyone in America versus Denmark, or South Korea. The size of the Country alone is an impediment to progress. Besides Internet connectivity is a PRIVILEDGE not a RIGHT, get your facts straight. No one person in America (or Denmark) DESERVES Internet access, let alone high speed internet. The worst possible scenario for the Internet is FCC regulations, period. We will quickly become China 2.0 and you will find that you miss the days of Corporate entities controlling content versus Government flunkies. I can deal with Google, and Comcast with my online business (which has been my sole source of income for 3 years now), but I cannot deal with Government entities, as they are blind, deaf, and dumb to the needs of average Americans and/or small business owners. How in the heck can a website called Free Press splash a page named Save the Internet by encouraging Government interference? I just don't understand. Spending 6 yrs in the Military taught me much about how the Government runs things in general, then 10 years as a computer analyst, including security and network infrastructure, taught me even more and there is NOTHING neutral about this bill. With a Company, I can either possibly spend a little more for the services I want and need, or switch to another Company, with Government I am locked into what they want me to see or have acess to. Please, do not let anyone fool you, this is a huge slippery slope and if we allow even a tiny fraction of FCC control over the Internet (price fixing, which is all this Bill is) they (Government) will find excuses to take more and more control. I defy anyone to find legislation, especially legislation that brings in money or allows control over information, that has ever been rescinded by any future Administration, no matter how bad the original Bill was.
Your entire post hinges upon
Your entire post hinges upon the mistaken belief that regulation is the same as censorship. Think logically. The best interests of ISP's are served by providing as little as possible for as much as people will pay. Maintaining the internet as a free and open platform is not in such companies' best interests. Ergo, regulations are needed to protect consumers.
Besides this, you also mention that access to the internet is a "privilege". Allow me to correct you. Internet access has traditionally been a service- you pay for the actions of an ISP, namely providing a framework and connection to that framework. However, we are rapidly approaching a point where the internet will no longer be a luxury, but rather a required service, such as telephones.
It's not mentioned much but
Another sector that would dearly like to kill the net are dirty corporations in general. The net makes it easy to find the low down about almost any company out there. Sites like Sourcewatch are an example. Spinwatch, PRwatch, and Wikipedia.
In the "good 'ol days" corporations could rest easy knowing that 99.9% of the public knew nothing about the shenanigans they were involved in and that the MSM was not likely to make it known. Not now though, and that really burns 'em up.
Another sector that would
Another sector that would dearly like to kill the net are dirty corporations in general. The net makes it easy to find the low down about almost any company out there. Sites like Sourcewatch are an example. Spinwatch, PRwatch, and Wikipedia.
In the "good 'ol days" corporations could rest easy knowing that 99.9% of the public knew nothing about the shenanigans they were involved in and that the MSM was not likely to make it known. Not now though, and that really burns 'em up.
Yes, dirty politics could kill the Net.
This includes corporate lobbying by astroturf groups which want to impose Internet regulations wanted by big companies like Google. And lobbying groups which send their employees to work at government agencies to lobby them from within (like, ahem, Free Press, whose former PR person is now the press secretary at the FCC). If the regulations are passed they will kill the Net.
The narrowly defined
The narrowly defined libertarian view is that we should have blind faith that phone and cable companies have the best interests of Americans in mind – and will deliver fast, open and affordable Internet services without government oversight.
As I wrote above: "That’s a huge mistake. Comcast and AT&T can no better police themselves to protect the open Internet than BP can police itself to protect the oceans. We already know how that ends. The phone and cable companies must play by the rules."
The good news is that many libertarians support Net Neutrality because they see a corporate gatekeeper -- in a world where phone and cable companies control broadband access for more than 95% of Americans -- as the more pressing threat to free speech. Check this out:
http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/304
Who signed?
Could Save The Internet please post the names of the members of congress who signed this thing? I'd like to know who went along with this and who didn't on both sides of the aisle. Thanks!
Names are here:
https://secure.freepress.net/site/SPageNavigator/NN_members
Absolutely. We need names so
Absolutely. We need names so we can make calls.
Ditto
How could you leave out a link to who signed? It's a key omission!
It's linked to above but here it is again
https://secure.freepress.net/site/SPageNavigator/NN_members
How many reps received
How many reps received contributions but didn't sign?
Fortunately my Rep didn't sign that letter
I checked thank goodness my Representative didn't sign the letter. Congressman Raul Grijalva has been a strong supporter all along of an Open Internet. It is shameful some House Democrats from California like Loretta Sanchez though sided with big telecom and cable industry lobbyists against us.
The careers of each of the 74 need to end.
I will never again vote for Baca or Sanchez. Its over. I consider the GOP to be a party of absolute corruption but I will vote for a GOPer before I ever vote for either of these two again. And there are probably people on the GOP side that feel the same way. Each vote is a sign of being bought and paid for the the point of sociopathy or pure malevolence. or disqualifying negligence or admixture. But I knew this about the Dems so I switched to Green anways, but still I am so angry that I prefer a more honest GOP con to the less honest GOP con in Dem clothing and will vote for that con to purge the democratic side.
Further this argument needs to be ended once and for all by taking away this infrastructure from these insane companies, they should never be allowed to claim that they own the pipes or the networks, that just the wrong starting point, they are never more than limited contractors that serve at the pleasure of the public, expendible and replaceable and not entities that can hold us hostage over our very democracy.
Counter Letter
If 74 were willing to sign this thing, those are likely all the closet Republican's and its a good test.
There should be a counter letter from every other Democrat with a 2/3 lead over these fakes.
I've heard the conventional wisdom over and over again and the GOP keeps trying to brainwash people into thinking they will gain seats in the fall but I expect them to register losses in both houses possibly even massive loses. I think the public is starting to see that they are just con men. Being lied into a war, Katrina, stealing elections, the financial crisis, BP, the health care crisis, immigration, 911, trying to destroy social security, the education crisis... all of it. There is still enough time to get rid of some of these democrats for the election cycle so the point of this little exercise of trying to say a democratic house majority is mute on this issue is gone.
There is a counter letter
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) is circulating a letter supporting Net Neutrality and the FCC's role in protecting our online rights.
It's here: http://static1.firedoglake.com/32/files/2010/05/Inslee-FCC-Letter_Title-...
So far these members have signed it:
Tammy Baldwin WI-2
Earl Blumenauer OR-3
John Conyers MI 14
Pete Defazio OR-4
Lloyd Doggett TX-25
Donna Edwards MD 04
Sam Farr CA-17
Brad Filner CA-51
Barney Frank MA-4
Maurice Hinchey NY-22
Jay Inslee WA-1
Zoe Lofgren CA-16
Jim McDermott WA-7
Bill McGovern MA-3
George Miller CA-7
Jerry Nadler NY-8
Jared Pollis CO-2
Linda Sanchez CA-39
Janice Schakowsky IL-9
Joe Sestack PA-7
John Tierney MA-6
Tim Walz MN-1
Maxine Waters CA 35
Lynn Woolsey CA-6
One Congressional sell-out has 2 Facebook pages
Update: On the page with signers of an industry letter against Net Neutrality (the 74 House Democratic Congressional sell-outs) it lists Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California (D- CA) having accepted $77,000 from big cable and telecom companies unfortunately as one of the sell-outs. It also displays a link to a Facebook page she has where SaveTheInternet activists are now posting disappointed comments to asking her why she signed this letter to sell out the Internet -- however, I've discovered she has a second Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/LorettaSanchez?v=wall
The Facebook link above is not listed on the page of House Democratic Congressional sell-outs. However, this one is: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Loretta-Sanchez/6282804763
One Congressional sell-out has 2 Facebook pages
Update: On the page with signers of an industry letter against Net Neutrality (the 74 House Democratic Congressional sell-outs) it lists Rep. Loretta Sanchez of California (D- CA) having accepted $77,000 from big cable and telecom companies unfortunately as one of the sell-outs. It also displays a link to a Facebook page she has where SaveTheInternet activists are now posting disappointed comments to asking her why she signed this letter to sell out the Internet -- however, I've discovered she has a second Facebook page. http://www.facebook.com/LorettaSanchez?v=wall
The Facebook link above is not listed on the page of House Democratic Congressional sell-outs. However, this one is: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Loretta-Sanchez/6282804763
Ending all Secrecy and Empowering with Privacy.
If privacy is the primary right or the construct that makes rights make sense then secrecy in the organizational, governmental or business sense is antithetical to it.
Ending secrecy and empowering with privacy may be a way to get at problematic aspects of political representation? Make sponsorship in all of its forms illegal and the related problems with lobbying and puffing will go as well. Sponsorship is a kind of bribery. Sometimes there is disclosure, but that’s a kind of loss leader for the insidious collusion and bribery that in practice dampen speech. This could prevent moneyed interests from getting the kind of power over discourse that money should never be able to buy.
No secrecy in contract, no non disclosure agreements, no corporate veil, no intellectual property protections, no state secrets, no classified or need to know anything. All of this stuff is uses secrecy to remove the ultimately nullify the privacy and voice of the individual.
In the IP sphere it time to do public research and hand the fruits out to all comers foreign and domestic. Firms can differentiate and incentivize on the basis of process, they just don’t get anything exclusive and certainly no exclusivity supported by law. Artists can go public domain they will make more. Society isn’t getting its return on equity from profit based incentive mechanisms so profit can fend for itself, die or become useful. It may be that society can get on without profit (or much of it) and we don’t need a Steve Perlman or Steve Jobs acting as the loss leader for a million miscreants.
It doesn’t matter if we were doing the original Manhattan project, our attitude should be: you may see exactly what we are doing but that doesn’t mean you can stop us or even get their first. This doesn’t mean we would point stuff out we just wouldn’t be allowing or expecting secrecy. It doesn’t matter if the rabble doesn’t’ understand, they can choose education.
It solves the insanity of torture. There would be no inane attempts to justify torture because stuff would always be obvious and we would expect people to tell the enemy everything and our people would know they wouldn’t have the luxury of any assumed secrecy because we wouldn’t allow for it. The state wouldn’t have secrets or national security justifications based on secrecy. There would be no need for a FOIA. No silly executive power nonsense based on saving face, it would be more mechanical than mystical and there would be no face to save.
From a disabled person in the third world to a US President all would have strong privacy rights. No more worrying about corporations snooping on private email.
No corporations pointing cameras at people on at work, the firm would have to spend on better inventory control
For get about auditing, everything would be open and updated continuously.
Forget about financial gossip or credit reporting, they can do it the old fashioned way. Debt is no substitute for increases in the standard or living. .
With regard to net neutrality, this is a natural result of a ban on secrecy and strong support for privacy. A telecom firm couldn’t develop an automated method to blight out millions of sites with slow loading at strategic times (run up to elections or routinely) because that would be an attempt to create secrecy. Firms whose business models depended on blocking access or suppressing information or trying to unnecessarily elevate the cost of access would be illegal because across class information asymmetry manipulations are attempts to create a defacto secrecy. Personally I’d hope these sorts of attempts would carry the same sort of criminal penalties that voter fraud does, well strengthen both.
I like these kinds of arguments and would like to see them discussed more often because when we for instance talk about strong internet neutrality we also need to be talking about Open Search and mandatory default “opt in settings.” We really need to be presenting the package of options and pushing for more than we can expect and making the unfavorable comparisons. This is a kind of punch through effect. It should also be more linked up with Green Party and alternative parties, no Democrat that signed the net neutrality opposition letter is actually a Democrat. Signing that letter seems to point to malevolence, sociopathy, or gross negligence- or all three.