Thanks!

Don’t always believe the purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington. Some of these DC pundits are so steeped in their own “knowledge” that they get stuck spinning their wheels when faced with evidence to the contrary.

This was the case for a few of Washington’s finest who recently hunkered down behind their laptops to convince the world that Net Neutrality was dead and gone.

Greatly Exaggerated Rumors of a Death

The issue is a “fading memory,” one crowed. It “barely raises a yawn” said another.

That Net Neutrality has remained a centerpiece of public activism outside the Beltway was lost on these naysayers.

The Road to Recovery

As any 12-step veteran can tell you, denial can be interpreted as a final cry for help. And more than one Potomac insider could use an intervention.

Fortunately, some of their colleagues have stepped in to report that the fight for Net Neutrality is alive and well. It’s leading the news and being vigorously debated on the Hill and along the campaign trail.

Indeed, earlier today support for Net Neutrality emerged as the No. 1 issue that thousands of visitors to TechPresident had selected to be answered by all the presidential candidates. By Monday afternoon’s count, more than twice as many people had voted for the Net Neutrality question over any other issue at 10Questions.com.

Sen. Barack Obama answered their question during a live forum on MTV. “Yes, I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality,” he said, adding that discrimination “destroys one of the best things about the Internet — which is that there is this incredible equality there.”

On the Hill and in the Media

On Capitol Hill, both Republicans and Democrats have joined in a call for urgent congressional action in defense of Net Neutrality. Last Thursday, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) called for new hearings, citing recent incidents of blocking of cell-phone and Internet traffic.

The senators wrote that recent actions by Comcast and Verizon have raised “serious concern about the phone and cable companies’ power to discriminate.” They called upon the Senate Commerce Committee “to determine if they were based on legitimate business and network management policies or part of practices that would be deemed unfair and anti-competitive.”

In less than two days, 10,000 activists wrote their members of Congress supporting the senators’ call for hearings.

Net Neutrality has become the topic du jour among tech-forums and trade press as well, including prominent reports at SlashDot, Ars Technica, Consumerist, Machinist, BetaNews, WebProNews, GigaOm and, yes, even CNet News — whose own DC navel gazer declared the “death of Net Neutrality” just a few weeks ago.

Gatekeepers in Need of a Solution

In mainstream press, Stephen H. Wildstrom, a senior technology writer and editor at BusinessWeek, wrote that he had shifted his position to support Net Neutrality following recent incidents of network gatekeeping. “The behavior of the top telecommunications companies, especially Verizon Communications and AT&T, has convinced me that more government involvement is needed to keep communications free of corporate interference,” he wrote.

In the Washington Post, Rob Pegoraro wrote last week that customers ought to have a simple remedy in cases where the only Internet providers available attempt to block or slow their connections. “The network-neutrality debate will never go away as long as [the lack of choice in the ISP market] remains the case,” he writes, “nor should it.”

At the San Jose Mercury News, Vindu Goel writes that efforts to restore Net Neutrality protections had been unsuccessful in the absence of evidence that Internet providers were meddling with the free flow of information. He adds that all this has changed since Comcast began blocking peer-to-peer sharing.

“There was no real evidence that Internet providers were discriminating against any content,” he concludes. “Now there is.”

Life Beyond the Beltway

Net Neutrality has also been debated in recent issues of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal and in hundreds of new blog posts since early October.

So the next time some insider tells you that Net Neutrality is dead I advise you to check his pulse instead. Then point out the more than 1.5 million Americans - from every state and county across the nation — who are taking action to protect the free and open Internet.

And if you can spare it, give him some change for bus fare and a map of the world beyond the Beltway.

As anyone knows who’s waited at home endlessly for the cable guy to show up — or been stuck on hold trying to report a problem — the term “Comcast customer service” is already pretty much an oxymoron.

So it’s amazing to watch how fast Comcast moves in the face of a PR crisis.

As you’ve hopefully heard by now, the Associated Press busted Comcast for blocking its users’ access to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks like BitTorrent and Gnutella, among other applications. This fraudulent practice is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.

The Consumerist got its hands on a memo Comcast HQ rushed out to its customer service centers with a simple message: deny, deny, deny.

Here’s an excerpt:

If a customer contacts us to inquire about this, please use the following talking points.

Comcast does not block access to any applications, including BitTorrent

We respect our customers’ privacy and we don’t monitor specific customer activities on the Internet or track individual online behavior, such as which websites they visit. Therefore, we do not know whether any individual user is visiting BitTorrent or any other site.

We have a responsibility to provide all of our customers with a good experience online and we use the latest technologies to manage our network. This is standard practice for ISPs and network operators all over the world.

We rarely disclose our vendors or our processes for operating our network both for competitive reasons and to protect against network abuse.

That last paragraph is key. The memo goes on to give specific instructions on how to evade inquiries about Sandvine — the Canadian company whose technology makes such “traffic shaping” possible.

Sandvine’s Secret List

Tech journalist Om Malik has been looking into the company, and it seems its whole business is based on helping the big broadband providers block, interfere, manipulate and otherwise “pursue the broadband management objectives sought by that service provider.”

And Comcast certainly isn’t Sandvine’s only client. They claim eight of the top 20 U.S. broadband providers as customers. Malik writes:

Sandvine doesn’t identify its customers; it refers to them as Company A, B, C or whatever, but never by name. I guess that’s because this is potentially sensitive information and a potential PR disaster.

These companies clearly can’t be trusted. Congress needs to get to the bottom of which companies are using these technologies and for what ends. Bipartisan Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) have already called for hearings into “content discrimination,” and they can’t happen soon enough.

It’s time to see both Comcast and Sandvine squirming in the hot seat. And here’s the first question: Why are you blocking your customers from downloading the Bible?

I don’t see an answer to that one in the talking points.

The good news is that it won’t take an act of God to fix this problem, just action from Congress.

What they must do has never been clearer: We need Net Neutrality now.

After days of silence, Comcast released a statement last night responding to the AP investigative report showing the company blocking or interfering with BitTorrent’s file-sharing traffic — and much more.

To recap, AP conducted its own testing to verify chatter in the blogosphere that Comcast was surreptitiously throttling the peer-to-peer file-sharing network BitTorrent. Further testing by the Electronic Frontier Foundation showed Comcast blocking Gnutella, another file-sharing network, and the business application Lotus Notes.

What Comcast is doing is inspecting the packets of information users send over BitTorrent and similar peer-to-peer protocols. When Comcast’s technology identifies a file being uploaded over BitTorrent, it intercepts and terminates the transmission by falsifying the TCP to look like one of the end users.

As Professor Susan Crawford explains: “It’s as if someone else that sounded like you got on the phone as you were talking to your mother and said, ‘We need to hang up right now.’ ”

Comcast’s behavior, which AP calls “the most drastic example yet of data discrimination by a U.S. Internet service provider,” is what a world without Net Neutrality looks like.

Once again — following incidents of AT&T censoring Pearl Jam online and Verizon rejecting NARAL’s text messages — we see why these gatekeepers can’t be trusted.

Devil in the Details

Comcast claims it doesn’t block access to any Web sites or online applications. It claims its just trying to “manage the network” to provide a “good Internet experience” for its customers. Sounds innocuous enough. But the devil, as always, is in the details.

Detail #1: Comcast’s technology doesn’t target individual users — it targets an entire technological protocol. Comcast isn’t just cracking down on “bandwidth hogs.” Regardless of an individual user’s actual bandwidth consumption, she may be blocked simply for choosing to upload through a targeted application (BitTorrent, etc.). I would like to hear anyone argue this is a fair adoption of “network management” techniques. Such methods directly contradict the core principles of the open Internet.

Detail #2: Comcast’s technology falsely impersonates its customers. Even if Comcast has the right to manage its networks, does it have the right to impersonate its customers to achieve network control? Clearly Comcast engaged in such a deceitful practice to avoid customers noticing and complaining. Such behavior may very well fall within the type of unfair or deceptive trade practices regulated by the Federal Trade Commission. Lawsuits are likely to follow.

What’s Comcast Doing?

Such secretive and misleading practices — at least when they’re exposed — are likely to be bad for business. So why did Comcast interfere in such an unsavory manner? The first answer is simple: They thought they could get away with it. After all Comcast’s filtering technology is highly complex and not always noticeable to end-users.

And what can you do if you find out that you’ve been blocked by Comcast? Switch to AT&T or Verizon and suffer with slow DSL speeds and their own draconian terms of service.

But I think there is a second, more insidious but logical explanation: Comcast is paving the way to stifle competition in video delivery services. The world’s largest cable television company, Comcast has a natural incentive to keep customers watching movies and television shows through their system, not the Internet.

BitTorrent is rapidly emerging as one of the most successful and efficient online platforms for the sharing of large files. Numerous content providers in Hollywood have contracted with BitTorrent to make available their programming online for download, including 20^th Century Fox, Lions Gate, MTV, Paramount, Spike and the CW. Comcast certainly foresees BitTorrent’s threat to its core business model and wants to stifle such nascent competition in its infancy.

You may have missed it in the fine print of your agreement. Phone companies like Verizon and AT&T reserve the right to block your free speech and terminate your cell phone services “without prior notice and for any reason or no reason.”

That’s chilling enough, but here’s the shocker. There are no laws that prevent these giant companies from censoring your speech on their networks. That’s right — free speech ends at your cell phone.

Verizon’s Gag Rule

This is why Verizon recently got away with blocking text messages that NARAL Pro-Choice America wanted to send to its members.

This begs the question: “If the phone company can’t tell you what to say on a phone call, then why should they be able to tell you what not to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else?”

They shouldn’t. But don’t tell that to Verizon.

Verizon Is So Very Sorry

On Wednesday, New York State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky called two senior Verizon lawyers to testify at a hearing on their company’s recent censorship of NARAL.

The lawyers groveled before the Assemblyman and his colleagues. Verizon was so very, very sorry about the incident that they changed some “dusty policies” so that this particular mistake would never, ever happen again. But when pressed they refused to relinquish their company’s authority to censor other speech over their networks.

Verizon apologies should provide little comfort. Free Press has sifted through the agreements of several Internet and cell phone providers — including Verizon and AT&T — and found explicit language that reserves their right to cut off, block or permanently cease to provide services to anyone — and for no reason.

Imagine that. Free speech over networks used by more than 230 million Americans can be denied at the whim of a Verizon and AT&T — the same companies, by the way, which are now seeking retroactive immunity for illegally wiretapping Americans and handing over the results to the government.

A Wild West View of the Internet

Verizon’s two lawyers went one further. They told Assemblyman Brodsky that their company should be free from any and all regulatory restraints. Above the law. Americans should simply trust that Verizon will do what’s best for everyone — as the Internet’s sheriff, gatekeeper and undertaker all rolled into one.

So, do you trust Verizon to serve your interests?

Internet, email and text messaging are a final refuge for free speech — at a time when other “mass media” have become the domain of a handful of powerful companies. We can’t let the Internet slip into the hands of the same types of gatekeepers that now control most of what we see and hear over television and radio.

Policies not Apologies

It’s clear that the fundamental democratic principles of free speech and open communications are too important to entrust to corporate gatekeepers like these.

Lawmakers need to take decisive action to protect the free flow of information over 21st Century communications. The most important free-speech principle in communications law is nondiscrimination; and its most important application is Net Neutrality.

There are a few bright lights in all this telco darkness. One is Sen. Byron Dorgan who on Wednesday called for a congressional investigation into censorship on cell phones and the Internet. Earlier this year Dorgan joined with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine to introduce the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act,” which protects Net Neutrality under law. At the moment he needs your support and support from his colleagues on Capitol Hill.

Another bright light is New York Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. At the end of his hearing this week, he pledged to re-draft and re-introduce state level legislation that would prevent phone and cable companies from smothering the free flow of information over Internet and cell phone networks.

Free Speech for the 21st Century

The other bright lights are the more than 1.5 million Americans who have called for baseline protections to our freedom to chose where we go, what we say and whom we say it to every time we boot up our computers or pick up our cell phones.

We are facing down one of the most powerful corporate lobbies Washington has ever seen. We need to match the hundreds of millions of dollars they spend to strong arm legislators, rewrite the law and distort democracy with the voices of millions more who believe the Internet must remain free, open and available to everyone.

We must fight for freedom of speech, right now in a digital world, as stubbornly as we fought for at our nation’s founding.

Comcast joined the list of phone and cable giants that want to become the gatekeepers to your world.

The company is now blocking the file-sharing network BitTorrent, according an investigation by the Associated Press. The act is a striking violation of Net Neutrality, the principle which ensures that ISPs treat all web traffic without discrimination.

A problem in need of a solution

Service providers often slow down some types of traffic to manage flow, but Comcast is actually blocking completed files that users upload and try to share with another user. (For a detailed explanation of how this happens, visit Susan Crawford’s blog.)

This practice underscores the need for clear laws ensuring an open and neutral Internet.

Save the Internet partner Public Knowledge says there is a right and a wrong way to manage traffic: “The right way is to let consumers know how much bandwidth they can use, as companies in other parts of the world do. The wrong way is to take control of a consumer’s computer to throttle their use of the network that Comcast simply doesn’t like.”

Cable and phone companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon should not be allowed to play gatekeeper over their consumers’ ability to send or receive legal content over the Internet. It is time for Congress to pass laws that protect free speech on all 21st century communications.

The BitTorrent file-sharing model is on the cutting edge of innovation for online video distribution and the future of our media system. If you want content that isn’t available on the Comcast system, the Internet is the place to go and this is the technology that is going to bring it to you. It’s no surprise that Comcast, whose primary business is video, is working to smother a growing competitor.

“This incident is the latest in a pattern of bad behavior from the telephone and cable companies,” says Ben Scott, Free Press policy director. “This is a disturbing trend that validates all of the concerns of the Net Neutrality advocates.”

Unlikely allies NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Christian Coalition have co-authored a Washington Post op-ed calling on Congress to address the censorship policies of phone companies like Verizon and AT&T.

“As the presidents of NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Christian Coalition of America, we are on opposite sides of almost every issue. But when it comes to the fundamental right of citizens to participate in the political process, we’re united — and very, very worried,” write Nancy Keenan and Roberta Combs.

Last month, Verizon arbitrarily banned text messages from NARAL, deeming the lawful political speech too “controversial and unsavory” to send to the NARAL members who had voluntary signed-up to receive the messages.

“Free speech shouldn’t stop when you turn on your computer or pick up your cellphone,” write Keenan and Combs. “Recent actions by the nation’s biggest communications corporations should be of grave concern to all who care about public participation in our democracy.”

When news of the censorship sparked widespread public outrage, the telco giant quickly apologized, reversed its decision and tried to spin the incident as mistake based on a “dusty internal policy.”

For Keenan and Combs, Verizon’s apology doesn’t cut it.

“When it comes to censoring free speech, sorry just isn’t good enough,” they write. “Whatever your political views — conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, pro-choice or pro-life — it shouldn’t be up to Verizon to determine whether you receive the information you requested.”

In calling for congressional hearings on the censorship, NARAL and the Christian Coalition join a growing list of organizations, businesses and everyday citizens who want Congress to take immediate action to protect free speech on all communications platforms.

We can’t trust phone companies to safeguard our basic American freedoms.

As NARAL and the Christian Coalition write, “If corporations can’t tell Americans what to say on a phone call, they shouldn’t be able to control content or tell us what to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else. That’s something all Americans — regardless of their political views — can agree on.”

Once again, the telcos are proving that they can’t be trusted. They’ve censored free speech, attacked the open Internet and allowed spying on their networks. Both Verizon and AT&T have been caught handing over customer phone records to the National Security Agency (NSA). The phone companies first denied it and then started a quiet campaign with the White House to gain immunity from any lawsuits.

Siding with AT&T and against the Constitution

The campaign got a lot louder on Wednesday, when President Bush told reporters that he would veto a new FISA eavesdropping bill that doesn’t grant retroactive immunity to the phone companies. About 40 pending lawsuits name several telecommunications companies for alleged violations of wiretapping laws.

Despite the intense pressure from telco lobbyists and the Bush administration, Americans are telling Congress that they’re fed up with the abusive relationship between big telcos and the White House. On Wedensday, our representatives showed that they are listening. The House Judiciary Committee voted down an amendment to grant telcos legal immunity. Democrats will bring the bills to the full House for passage next week. The Senate Intelligence Committee will be introducing its own bill. The House move against immunity should serve as a guide for their colleagues across the Capitol dome.

Telecommunication companies are one of the biggest political donors in the United States. They have also worked hand-in-hand with the Bush administration to whittle away our constitutional freedoms, all the while seeking special policy favors and a rubber stamp for their mega-billion-dollar mergers. Today’s committee vote might be a sign that their political clout has its limits.

The ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation are urging members to tell Congress to fight against any type of immunity for telcos.

Amnesty for AT&T and Verizon for illegally wiretapping Americans is a stunning example of the ways this White House sides with their corporate benefactors against the most fundamental democratic principles. The Bush administration would rather flout the laws for friends in high places than protect the free speech and privacy of law abiding Americans.

Phone companies simply cannot be trusted to act in good faith to protect the free flow of information. Congress must step in to protect speech over our phones, text messaging and the Internet with policies that keep the lines open, neutral and free of corporate and government gatekeepers.

Some of the most powerful voices in labor are throwing their full support behind Net Neutrality– calling it crucial to the success and vitality of our democracy.

In a blog post at SavetheInternet.com, Jim Hoffa, the general president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, called on Congress to pass legislation that would “ensure that discrimination and economic injustice does not return in a 21st Century form.”

The Teamsters’ Jim Hoffa When corporations control communications, workers lose

Hoffa referred specifically to recent instances where massive Internet providers had used their gatekeeping authority to stifle free speech over cell phones and the Internet.

“What would happen if … workers decided to fight for better working conditions?” he asks. “Would they be able to list their grievances on a Web site? Just this week, AT&T updated its terms for Internet service. The company will now suspend or cancel Internet service to anyone who speaks out against the company in any way. When corporations control communications and the ability to appeal to the public for justice, workers will ultimately lose.”

In 2005, when Canadian telecommunications workers struck against phone giant Telus, the phone company blocked access to voices-for-change.ca and 600 other sympathetic Web sites.

SEIU President Andy Stern A ‘pay-to-play’ Internet is dangerous for organizing

“It’s important to make sure that workers are free to unite online about issues in the workplace,” wrote Andy Stern, president of the 1.9-million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is part of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. “It’s also important to make sure that everyone in America has equal access to the Internet.”

“Restricting access or creating a ‘tiered network’ runs the risk of restricting the Internet only to those who can afford it,” said Stern. “A ‘pay-to-play’ Internet is dangerous not only for any group that wants to organize it’s members online, but to anyone who cares about free speech and democracy.”

For both Hoffa and Stern, the Internet is a critical tool for checking the powers of corporations and holding our elected leaders accountable. As phone companies continue to demonstrate their unwillingness to open communications to everyone, these union leaders — and the millions of working Americans they represent — look to Congress to step in and protect free speech.

Jim Hoffa, General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, guest blogs at SavetheInternet.com about labor’s growing support for Net Neutrality. According to Hoffa, Net Neutrality is a fundamental component of a healthy and just democracy.

By Jim Hoffa

Guest Blog by Jim Hoffa The Internet is a last refuge for those fighting for the right to know

Every American and every organization, regardless of wealth or position, should have the same rights of access and expression. These are the very principles upon which this nation was founded.

But today these rights are under attack. Decisions by the Federal Communications Commission and the Supreme Court in 2005 have put at risk the fundamental rights of open access on the Internet. These rule changes would allow a few media multinationals to control the speed at which information can be moved across the Internet, and ultimately control whose information is not moved at all.

Some believe these rules would foster increased investment in new technologies and create new jobs. I believe, however, that this is a very shortsighted view. For example, what would happen if these workers decided to fight for better working conditions? Would they be able to list their grievances on a web site? Just this week, AT&T updated its terms for Internet service. The company will now suspend or cancel Internet service to anyone who speaks out against the company in any way.

When corporations control communications and the ability to appeal to the public for justice, workers will ultimately lose. That was the experience of Canadian telecom workers when they struck Canadian telephone giant Telus in 2005. The company blocked access to voices-for-change.ca and 600 other sympathetic web sites for about 16 hours.

Consolidation of the mainstream media has already led to a visible decline in coverage of workplace issues. The Internet has become the last refuge for truth and balance for organizations fighting for public safety, public security, workers’ rights and the public’s right to know.

The bottom line is that charging some organizations more to ensure rapid delivery of their message is un-American and endangers every individual or group that would dare dissent from the corporate gatekeeper’s point of view. The Internet was created and has flourished under the concepts of open access and collaboration.

Some companies have grown rich by creating innovative technologies and content. Others have learned that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. Creating a tiered system of content delivery in which corporations can control which information gets out, which information is slowed and which information flows freely, falls into the latter category.

I have urged the Senate to take up S.B. 215, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, known as ‘Net Neutrality.’ This bipartisan measure updates the 70-year- old Communications Act of 1934 and would ensure that discrimination and economic injustice does not return in a 21st Century form.

Sen. John Kerry returns to SavetheInternet.com to continue a conversation with activists and respond to your ideas about making American broadband faster, more open and affordable for everyone. You can join the discussion by responding to the Senator in the comment thread below.

By Sen. John Kerry

Last week I posted here to hear your views on how to expand Internet access for everyone, including America’s small businesses.

Guest Blog Post by Sen. John Kerry Join the debate

Our country lacks a clear national broadband strategy, which is inexcusable in an area so critical for our economic competitiveness. The President promised nationwide broadband deployment by 2007 but hasn’t even delivered a strategy to get there, let alone any actual accomplishments toward the goal.

Your Activism Has Already Made a Difference

So, in advance of our Senate Small Business Committee hearing on the issue last Wednesday, I wanted to get your views. Your activism on every issue — from Net Neutrality to the 700 MHz auction to media consolidation — has already contributed greatly to the national conversation.

We need to look no further than Verizon Wireless’s ill-fated attempt to block NARAL’s communications with their members. This was a scary but very real reminder of the importance of Net Neutrality. Many of you voiced your concern, and your diligence caused Verizon Wireless to do a 180 from its censorship policy.

We need the same activism now from the Net community in speaking out against AT&T’s Orwellian scheme, where criticizing them could terminate your service. As power consolidates in fewer and fewer hands, we need to make sure that the gatekeepers don’t block dissent or progressive values.

So, first, I’d just like to personally thank each of you for your insightful comments on how to ensure affordable Internet access for everyone. Our hearing last week was very successful, and I shared many of your thoughts with the FCC.

The Internet Should Flow Like Water

I read through the thread, and while I can’t respond to every comment specifically, I noticed some major themes. One suggestion I saw throughout was the call to treat the Internet like any other essential utility, and I couldn’t agree with you more. We don’t let profits dictate who has running water and whose lights are on in America. The same must hold true for Internet access. All Americans, all schools and all businesses should have access to high-speed Internet connections just like these other basic services.

Universal broadband service will require strong build-out requirements so that access to the Internet is not determined by potential profit margins. The phone and cable companies — the same ones seeking to silence their critics or the citizens who don’t agree with the Bush Administration — must be compelled to build out their networks to reach all parts of the country.

In addition to that, though, we need to make sure that we create real competition where we can, as many of you commented. It sounds like a no-brainer — more competitors will mean lower prices, better service and cutting edge innovation. Yet we are not doing enough to make it happen.

I think - and judging by your activism on the issue many of you agree with me — that it’s critical to create broadband competition using the wireless spectrum. That’s why I have championed white spaces legislation and fair rules for the upcoming 700MHz spectrum auction.

Both will help new competitors enter the broadband market. In my view, the more entities providing Internet service, the better. And that’s why, as many of you suggested, it’s right for cities and towns across this country to provide “municipal broadband.”

Opening the Networks

Several posters raised the issue of local loop unbundling, and I’m eager to hear your suggestions about how to make this a reality.

As Free Press’s Ben Scott related at our hearing, Congressman Ed Markey once said, “The 1996 Telecom Act was a great idea. I sure wish somebody would try to implement it.” I think we all share this disappointment that the 1996 Telecom Act has not lived up to its billing in giving competing firms access to existing connections. When we wrote the bill, the expectation was that companies would be compelled to share their network but a series of court decisions and regulatory decisions have undermined the intent of the act. Now we have significant consolidation, less competition and less consumer choice.

The problem now is that it’s extraordinarily difficult to put that genie back into the bottle. A web of regulatory decisions and court cases has now institutionalized the current set-up. Short of passing another landmark telecom bill, do you see ways to move the unbundling issue forward to spark real competition and choice?

A National Policy: Moving Forward To Fix the System

While it may seem daunting to change some of these fundamental policies, your fight for Net Neutrality gives me hope that we can get true competition between Internet service providers. You’ve brought true progressive activism to what used to be arcane and obscure areas of legislation and regulatory red tape, and America will be better for it.

One issue that did not receive a lot of attention in your comments but is still important is the need to gather accurate data. The FCC’s data is rife with mistaken assumptions and faulty collection methods. We heard in our hearing that gathering better data is a threshold issue for working on broadband issues. This week I’m writing to the FCC and the Small Business Administration to ask them to collect more information about the accessibility of broadband internet access for small businesses. The startling lack of statistics about broadband availability is just not acceptable, and we’re going to light a fire under “the deciders” to change that.

It’s time that the Bush administration lives up to its promises and works together with Congress to create a national broadband policy. We need your help in building grassroots support for the kind of legislation that will ensure Internet for everyone, so that together we can move our country forward.

I thank you again for your activism, your thoughtfulness, and your diligence. I’ll be reading your thoughts here, and I’ll be sure to be back to talk about these issues in the future.

Please remain active and keep up the good fight.