Thanks!

Believe it or not, we’re eight years into the 21st century and more than half of the people in America have either no Internet access at home or are stuck on dial-up. In the meantime, countries in Asia and Europe have outpaced us with faster connections at far cheaper prices.

The Internet in your pocket? Not quite yet.

This situation is unacceptable, but there’s still reason to hope that we can regain our spot as a world leader in Internet services. Much of this rests on the outcome of a complex airwaves auction that began less than a week ago.

Up for sale is the “beachfront property” of our radio spectrum – the most important chunk of the public airwaves to become available in years. If used right, these airwaves will form the building blocks of the next generation of Internet services in America – which could put our country back on the top of the broadband heap.

So, what’s really at stake in the spectrum sell off? Our auction FAQ will help set the stage.

1. What is wireless spectrum?

The wireless spectrum is part of the invisible frequencies that we use to transmit television, radio, satellite and other communications signals. Because of its inherent scarcity – there are only a limited number of channels available on the airwaves – the Federal Communications Commission has the responsibility to manage the availability and use of such spectrum. Since 1993, the FCC has had the authority to organize auctions to award exclusive spectrum licenses for wireless communications services.

2. Why is the government auctioning off spectrum now?

In 2005, Congress passed a deficit reduction bill that set a definite date of February 17, 2009, to complete the transition from analog to digital television. It required television broadcasters to vacate the analog channels they currently occupy and instructed the FCC to auction off the newly freed up spectrum, known as the “700 band,” starting in January 2008. The auction began Jan. 24 and is expected to generate more than $10 billion for the government; over $7 billion of which will go toward deficit reduction.

3. Why is this chunk of spectrum important?

Since the FCC has already assigned specific licensees for most of our airwaves, the 700-band auction likely represents the last substantial and competitive auction for decades to come. And like over-the-air TV signals, the wireless signals transmitted within the 700 band are able to travel long distances and penetrate buildings and concrete walls, making them especially attractive for high-speed Internet services. One chunk of the 700 band, known as the “C Block,” will be available on a national scale — allowing the license holder to knit together a wireless national broadband network unlike any other.

4. Why is the auction important to consumers?

If used right, the 700 band could change fundamentally the way Americans use the Internet. This prized spectrum has all the technical characteristics to make access to high-speed Internet easy for those on the road, on foot or traveling by air. Your mobile phone could become your primary point of contact to the Web, altering the ways you shop, bank, share videos, navigate city streets, experience music and connect with friends. Analysts are now predicting the “mobile Web” to be the next user revolution in communications. If we play our cards right and safeguard openness over the mobile Internet, these predictions could become reality.

5. Why is the auction important to the future of an open Internet?

Wireless and wired Internet services in America are dominated by a few companies that have a track record of stifling competition and new ideas, and an aversion to open networks. The FCC has mandated open access for those receiving license to the C Block of the 700 band. While the C Block is just a small chunk of nationally available spectrum, it can demonstrate the benefits of injecting much-needed competition and innovation into the stagnant wireless marketplace. The new FCC conditions are a step forward. An open and vibrant C Block might lead to openness over all wireless networks.

6. Why has America fallen behind the rest of the world?

Millions of cell phone users in Europe and Asia now use hand-held devices to surf the Web. In the United States, however, cell phone companies dictate nearly every aspect of our wireless experience, preferring a “walled garden” to Europe’s more open model. America’s closed system is largely the byproduct of poor oversight; the FCC has long granted to carriers like AT&T and Verizon almost complete control over the ways consumers access the airwaves. In Europe and Asia, policies forced carriers to open wireless networks and allow users far more flexibility — connecting across networks with a choice of devices, services and applications. The proprietary approach of U.S. carriers has failed to foster similar competition, innovation and choice — leaving American consumers a generation behind their foreign counterparts.

7. Who are the key players in the auction?

There are initially 214 approved bidders for the auction. The usual suspects include wireless companies such as Verizon, AT&T, Cricket, MetroPCS and Alltel; cable providers such as Cox and Cablevision, and satellite provider Echostar. Google also threw its hat into the ring, as did financial giants from other sectors such as Chevron USA.

8. How does the auction work?

The FCC has constructed a set of complicated rules for the auction. All approved bidders will be operating under “blind bidding,” in which bidders will not be able to know the names of their competitors, preventing collusion to exclude a third party. In addition to the C Block and its open access conditions, the FCC has reserved a separate “D Block” to provide a new, interoperable national network for public safety users that would also be shared with commercial users. The FCC has also designated other blocks of the 700 band for smaller local and regional area licenses. All of the winning bidders will be required to follow a set of build-out rules to extend their wireless coverage area over time.

9. What is the likely outcome of the auction?

While more than 200 firms have registered to bid, those wealthy enough to win a national license are few — and, unfortunately, include the same phone giants that already control “wired” Internet access in America. Analysts expect Verizon and AT&T to win the bidding war over the largest single chunk of spectrum. This would position them to extend their control over U.S. Internet access to the wireless space. It would also undermine plans to inject new competition into America’s broadband marketplace. Placing the promise of the mobile Internet exclusively under the gatekeeper control of these companies is a chilling prospect. Google is one wild-card bidder that could alter the landscape. If it outbids the phone companies and wins access to the C Block, the Internet company has pledged to make “open access” a condition of its new mobile network.

10. What can the public do?

With a few exceptions, we have been blissfully free of gatekeepers on the wired Internet. But that won’t be the case in the wireless world — unless we make it so. Last summer, more than a quarter-million Americans wrote the FCC urging open access to the 700 band. Since the auction rules were put in place, wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T have pledged to have more open networks. But we can’t leave open access up to the whims of incumbents whose businesses were built as walled gardens. A coalition of public interest groups is now urging the FCC to open all mobile networks – not just the C Block – but they need public support for the agency to act. It’s time to put choice and innovation in the hands of consumers.

– By Shawn Chang and Timothy Karr

Cable Company’s Video Plan Recalls AOL’s ‘Walled Garden’

Time Warner made another interesting announcement, just a few days after confirming an experimental project to consider charging Internet users more for intensive Internet bandwidth use.

Guest Post by Marvin Ammori, Free Press General Counsel

On Monday, Time Warner announced a new Internet site called HBO on Broadband. Through this new site, HBO cable subscribers can download about 400 hours of HBO’s movies and original shows each month. Time Warner is rolling out this service to HBO subscribers first in Green Bay and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and will “slowly” expand it elsewhere, according to the New York Times.

But there is a catch. Well, maybe more than one.

The big ones are that you have to be an HBO cable subscriber with HBO On-demand; and you have to be signed up for Time Warner’s “Road Runner” high-speed Internet, which seems available only where Time Warner provides cable service. (There are also DRM restrictions – no transferring shows to portable devices, and the downloads only last four weeks.)

So let’s unpack this a little.

On the positive side, it’s nice that this HBO on Broadband service provides a convenience to some HBO subscribers in Time Warner regions. And hopefully, it will encourage competitors to make their content available online, without as many “catches.”

Unfortunately, the negatives are more numerous — and complex.

It’s not really online distribution.

First, HBO on Broadband works only for people who already pay to access HBO On-demand on Time Warner Cable. So it’s only useful when these people are on the road. Or if they have a bigger computer screen than TV screen at home.

You see, you can’t cancel your cable service and simply watch HBO online. So HBO on Broadband doesn’t actually compete with cable or broadcast television. To get some online downloads, you have to continue paying for the cable digital basic tier plus the rate for the premium HBO channel.

And that’s only if you live in a Time Warner region. So, at best, for those in Time Warner areas, HBO on Broadband further distinguishes HBO from other premium channels, like Showtime.

It encourages discrimination.

Time Warner announced it may start charging consumers more for using a lot of bandwidth. While this is somewhat better than blocking competitors outright, like Comcast is doing, it still raises Net Neutrality issues.

When it comes to HBO on Broadband, Time Warner owns both the pipe and the content. So it’s probably safe to assume that Time Warner wouldn’t want to apply its new high-bandwidth surcharges to its own product.

But favoring its own content over other channels or programs like BitTorrent would be discriminatory. The company would be using its gatekeeper power to steer users toward content it already owns.

It’s a new walled garden.

Remember the old America Online model? They tried to build their business by keeping users within AOL’s “walled gardens” of content rather than elsewhere on the Web. It didn’t work. But that’s basically what Time Warner (which was once called AOL Time Warner) is still trying to do.

As the company has acknowledged, Time Warner wants to distinguish its broadband offerings from those of its local phone competitors based on exclusive content. They’re betting that HBO-lovers will switch from a rival DSL service to Time Warner so these HBO-lovers can get unlimited access to Taxicab Confessions.

But what happens when other network providers do the same? We get a “balkanization” effect, where each network provider begins to wall off content that it owns for the exclusive use of its subscribers: Time Warner subscribers can get HBO and CNN online. Comcast users get exclusive access to G4 an E! online. And then the phone companies will start cutting their own deals with Hollywood, wooing them with promises of the best “copyright filtering.”

Time Warner might argue that all this represents wonderful competition. But it’s wrong. This content-grabbing by two local giants isn’t nearly as valuable to society as the wide-open application and content competition made possible by Network Neutrality.

The customer is always right.

And — most importantly — this is not what consumers want.

In other countries, thanks to smart policies, consumers do have a choice of Internet providers and a truly competitive market. Internet providers elsewhere have to compete based on things consumers actually want like greater openness, more bandwidth, higher speeds and better value. In countries with real competition, consumers get far higher speeds, guaranteed openness, and more bang for their krone.

But U.S. network providers are trying to avoid costly upgrades that might actually bring us world-class speed, bandwidth, and openness. Instead of investing in the network, they’d rather block sites, discourage Internet usage, and kick users off their networks. Since there’s so little competition here, they can get away with it. We have nowhere else to turn.

Rather than using content add-ons and walled gardens, Time Warner should have to invest in its network offer the openness and choices consumers really want. Better competition policies, like that found abroad, would require Time Warner to make those investments and respond to consumers’ real demands.

But such policies require political leadership — and lots of public pressure to make sure our elected officials don’t get too distracted by all the campaign cash and high-priced lobbying clout the phone and cable companies bring to the table.

This much is clear: Better policies and enforcement — not blocking or metering — are the best way to solve America’s broadband problems.

Net Neutrality supporters just won a new round in the fight to keep the Internet free of corporate gatekeepers like Comcast.

Over the past three months, more than 23,000 SavetheInternet.com activists sent letters to the Federal Communications Commission demanding an end to Comcast’s practice of blocking peer-to-peer traffic on its network.

Earlier this week the FCC came through, announcing that it would investigate an official complaint made by several SavetheInternet.com Coalition organizational members about this clear violation of Net Neutrality.

The agency is now seeking public comment in the face of mounting evidence of this blocking. (The commission also asked for comment on complaints by SavetheInternet.com members Free Press and Public Knowledge about Verizon Communications’ recent blocking of text messaging.)

The FCC will consider the public response before it decides whether to punish Comcast for filtering Web traffic.

Please take a moment to tell the FCC to put an immediate stop to content blocking by any ISP.

A Non-Neutral Comcast

Late last year, the Associated Press caught Comcast secretly using Web filtering technologies similar to those used in China to censor the Internet. AP called the violation “the most drastic example yet of data discrimination.”

In November, Free Press and other open Internet advocates filed a petition with the FCC calling for urgent action to stop Comcast’s Internet blocking. Tens of thousands of activists sent letters to the agency in support of our petition.

Until now, the company’s spokespeople have thumbed their noses at the public and the press — refusing to admit that the blocking of connections is underhanded or in any way threatens the free flow of information that’s become the hallmark of an open Internet.

Make an Example of the Gatekeeper

Comcast’s defense is flimsy. The company’s blatant and deceptive blocking is exactly the type of problem Net Neutrality supporters warned would occur without open Internet protections. Public pressure is now forcing the FCC to act.

Comcast’s meddling with user content is the canary in the coal mine for corporate efforts to control the Internet. The FCC must send a stern message to stop other phone and cable companies that want to follow Comcast’s lead.

Blocking access to the Internet should never be tolerated. The longer the FCC waits to punish Comcast, the more companies will continue to invest in technologies to censor and manipulate what we can do online.

Time Warner Cable’s plan to charge higher prices to high-bandwidth customers – revealed in a leaked memo obtained by Broadband Reports – is better than blocking applications and throwing users off their networks. But it’s far from an ideal solution for the millions of people who use the Internet for a range of rich media applications.

Internet service providers like Comcast have claimed that the only way to manage their networks is to either disconnect customers that exceed undisclosed bandwidth limitations or secretly block applications like BitTorrent and Gnutella. Clearly, Time Warner Cable’s metered-pricing approach – which will have a trial run in Beaumont, Texas before a possible national rollout – is preferable to such deceptive practices. With metered pricing, consumers can still choose which Web sites they visit, which files they want to share, and what software they want. But it’s little more than a band-aid for our bigger broadband problems.

“Metered prices may chill innovation in cutting-edge applications because consumers will have a disincentive to use them,” explains Ben Scott of Free Press. “Viewed in the context of our long-term national goals for a world-class broadband infrastructure, telling consumers they must choose between blocking and metered pricing is a worrying development.”

Network providers should build better networks, and not squeeze users to pay more for infrastructure that’s a generation behind what’s available in parts of Europe and Asia. In Japan, for instance, consumers can purchase connections of 100 Megabits per second, for both uploads and downloads, for less than it costs to get only 6 Mbs (at best) download and 1 Mbs upload in the United States. France is also far ahead of the United States in providing high-speed Internet at affordable prices (see Free.fr ).

Until cable companies improve their networks, our global competitors will continue to have the edge in technological innovations. And consumers will continue to be deprived of affordable access to the content, software, and networks available abroad. Metering may not be as bad as blocking – but we can do much, much better.

The introduction of the iPhone last year foretold a not-so-distant future where Internet access is a constant for those on the go. But the prospect of a “mobile Web” has raised thorny questions about the policies that allow cell phone companies to control our wireless experience.

These questions spilled over onto the floor this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, where a flood of new handheld Internet devices promise to compete with the iPhone and bring the mobile Web within everyone’s grasp.

Whether they know it or not, millions of wireless consumers will play a part in a contentious public policy debate every time they pick up one of these new Internet devices.

The problem is that surfing the mobile Web will never be a true Internet experience as long as powerful wireless companies like Verizon and AT&T dictate policy in Washington and throttle Internet access over their networks.

While these same carriers lately made a show of embracing the idea of giving consumers more control over devices, they’re still steadfastly reluctant to hand over real control. As long as this remains the case, the current buzz about “an Internet in your pocket” will amount to little more than hucksterism and hype.

Innovation vs. the Old School

At the close of 2007, many of the largest mobile carriers declared a newfound love for openness — allowing customers to use any compatible device or software on their networks.

But their courtship of consumer choice is more of an arranged marriage — the urging of policymakers, dogged public advocates and disgruntled consumers — which pushed the carriers kicking and screaming to the altar.

And there’s still a catch. Unlike the wired Internet, which operates on an open system, your freedom to access what you want on wireless systems is not guaranteed; it is granted or denied by your wireless company.

For years, the carriers lobbied Washington for control of wireless spectrum while pushing leased and subsidized handsets onto consumers. It seems like a great deal to get a cheap phone with your wireless plan. But it’s a devil’s bargain that charges you for your phone over the life of your contract and penalizes you with high termination fees, crippled applications and gated Web access.

It’s a business model that Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu calls anything but revolutionary. “AT&T is the oldest of the old school — the most ancient major high-tech firm in the United States, founded in 1878,” Wu wrote in an influential Slate article. “AT&T is back to its classic business model: own the largest networks and everything on them.”

This belief extends beyond its entrenched land-line services into the world of wireless.

Internet over the Air

On Jan. 24, the Federal Communications Commission is preparing to auction off access to an invaluable chunk of public spectrum — the “700 band.”

Until very recently, most people hadn’t heard that such valuable airwaves were going up for grabs. But these airwaves represent our last best chance to connect tens of millions of Americans to an open and affordable Internet.

This chunk of spectrum has the capacity to beam high-speed Internet signals almost everywhere in the country. With qualities that allow signals at this frequency to pass through concrete buildings and over mountains, this spectrum can connect people — using laptops, cell phones, and other mobile Internet devices — who are now bypassed by “wired” cable and DSL Internet providers.

But the promise of more universal access will only come to be if those who win 700 band licenses are actually interested in bringing choice to the market.

Companies like AT&T and Verizon hope to horde this spectrum and stifle competitive and cheaper alternatives to their closed networks. Letting them gain exclusive control over the 700 band would likely spell disaster — a wireless world that’s still dominated by a handful of carriers with a track record of price gouging and an aversion to innovation.

‘Calcified’ Carriers

After years of phone and cable company control over the Internet marketplace, the United States has fallen to 15th in the world broadband rankings, with few choices and some of the highest prices for the slowest speeds in the world.

We will continue to fall behind as long as we let a cartel of companies dictate Internet access for both wired and wireless connections.

These politically connected corporations don’t see this new spectrum as a chance to blow open the marketplace. They see it as a threat to the very profitable status quo.

Their continued control has left the U.S. generations behind other nations, a failure that prompted New York Times blogger David Pogue to call American carriers “calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts.”

Prying Open the Networks

The FCC moved last summer to change this, opening up the 700 band to inject competition and innovation into the frozen wireless marketplace. While its decision was a step in the right direction, it amounted to little more than a half-gesture toward true open access across all wireless applications.

At the urging of more than a quarter-million citizens, the FCC attached conditions to the 700 auction that would unlock cell phones and open them to all applications. But they didn’t heed a proposal put before the agency by public advocates, consumer organizations and tech companies that would have made true openness a reality — requiring that the spectrum be open to wholesaling where several carriers can compete against one another for consumers.

The end result is that despite the recent decisions at the FCC, the phone companies can still lock down the market and stifle openness. Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, explains:

Let’s say that Verizon Wireless wins the 700 MHz band licenses at auction that are required to connect any phone you like and offer any Internet application you choose. Great, in theory. But in practice, Verizon Wireless could use price-gouging to accomplish the goal of steering you to their preferred phones and applications.

If it costs five times as much to use a competitor’s device and five times as much to use a competitor’s application, most users will choose the path of least resistance. Suddenly promises of openness don’t look so grand.

Why this Matters

Worldwide the cell phone market is reported to be nearing 3 billion units, with 38 handheld devices sold every second. Contrast that with the mere 1.2 billion people who have logged on to a fixed Internet connection. Add true Internet capability to cell phones, and the makings of the next digital revolution are at hand.

In America, the 700 auction could put this country one step closer to ensuring Internet access for everyone that President Bush promised but failed to deliver by the end of 2007. Though it won’t dramatically change the status quo, it could be a precedent-setter that shifts consumer demand and public policy toward real openness.

The problem though is the closed model under which these devices still operate. With a few notable exceptions, we have been blissfully free of gatekeepers on the wired Internet. But that won’t be the case in the wireless world — unless we make it so.

A coalition of public interest groups and tech companies has joined to urge the FCC to open devices and applications across all mobile networks right away. That is the crowbar we need to pry open the closed networks of today and guarantee and open wireless Internet for future generations. These changes have to happen soon before an Internet-to-go becomes yet another walled garden.

While Las Vegas is buzzing over a “mobile Web,” it’s time we took stock of what that really means for innovation, competition and consumer choice.

It’s not just about shiny gadgets and Vegas spin. It’s about a future where handheld devices will be our No. 1 point of contact with the Internet. The iPhone is our wake-up call to get busy.

During a panel discussion at the Las Vegas Consumer Electronics Show, AT&T’s top lobbyist said the company was ready to implement new technologies that would allow it to inspect and filter Web traffic.

James Cicconi, AT&T’s senior vice president for external and legal affairs, said that the time was right to start filtering for content at the network level. “We think a network-based solution is the optimal way to approach this,” Cicconi said, according to a New York Times reporter who attended the panel.

It’s no secret that major ISPs have been working with technology companies such as Cisco to filter content with deep-packet-inspection software. Last year, AT&T revealed its plans to work with MPAA, RIAA and broadcasters to use and deploy “digital fingerprinting techniques.

According to public statements, their rationale for playing traffic cop is to ferret out pirated content: sniffing through our digital packets for material that infringe on copyright.

Can You Trust the Filter?

But the technology can be used for other purposes, and the phone giant has shown that it has no qualms invading our communications to hand over our private records to government, or censor speech or block services “without prior notice and for any reason or no reason.”

AT&T has also touted plans to become gatekeepers to the Web with public relations bromides about “shaping” Web traffic to better serve the needs of an evolving Internet.

In reality, Cicconi and his cohorts within the entertainment industry are waging a quiet campaign to control how video and other rich content gets distributed via the Web. The popular trend in video, however, is streaming in the opposite direction. More and more people are becoming their own creators and distributors of homespun video content. YouTube now boasts more than 100 million views each day, but it is just the beginning of this revolution.

Peer-to-peer traffic is spreading via popular technologies like BitTorrent and Gnutella, which allow users to upload and share videos, music and other rich media without a middleman or content gatekeeper. The bulk of this traffic is legal.

Peer-to-Peer Traffic ‘Not Acceptable’

Also at the Las Vegas panel was NBC Universal’s general counsel Rick Cotton, who told the Times that the volume of peer-to-peer traffic online was “overwhelming.”

“That clearly should not be an acceptable, continuing status,” Cotton said, and AT&T seems more than happy to step in.

These executives’ vision of a better Internet — AT&T’s “Your World Delivered” — is not one that is shared by the more than 1.5 million people who have spoken out in favor of a neutral, open and free-flowing Internet.

For us, the Internet isn’t about one company delivering our world or filtering our content. It’s about simply offering a high-speed connection at reasonable rates — and then getting out of our way.

FCC Chairman Kevin Martin today announced his intention to investigate blocking of peer-to-peer file-sharing services by Comcast and other Internet service providers. “Sure, we’re going to investigate and make sure that no consumer is going to be blocked…I tell the staff that they should act on all of those complaints and investigate all of them,” said Martin. But will the FCC Chairman keep his word?

“We hope the Chairman’s statements, made two months after we filed our complaint, will lead to immediate and accelerated action at the FCC on the critical issue of whether Comcast, AT&T and other Internet service providers can block the services people want to use,” said Marvin Ammori, general counsel of Free Press.

In October, an Associated Press exposé found that Comcast was secretly interfering with user access. This was later confirmed by an EFF report. In response, members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition filed a petition with the FCC calling upon the agency to take action against such net neutrality violations. In an accompanying complaint, Free Press and Public Knowledge asked the FCC to fine Comcast $195,000 for every affected subscriber.

In another petition filed in December, members of the SavetheInternet.com Coalition protested Verizon Wireless’s refusal to send text messages from NARAL Pro-Choice America. (Verizon later reversed its policy after a New York Times expose generated public outrage). The petition — filed by Public Knowledge, Free Press, U.S. PIRG, Media Access Project, Consumers Union and the New America Foundation — urged the FCC to prohibit cell phone companies from blocking or interfering with text messages sent over their networks. It also stated that cell phone companies should treat text messaging like spoken phone conversations — delivering all information to their customers without censorship.

In the dimming days of 2007, we bared the Telcos’ ugly side for all to see. Powerful communications companies including AT&T, Verizon and Comcast brought us a year of privacy invasions, threats to free speech and the deceptive blocking of Internet applications and access.

But all is not bleak. The year saw a number of prospects for getting high-speed Internet access and open communications to more Americans. But protecting a free-flowing Internet from these would-be gatekeepers depends largely on decisions we will make in 2008.

Below you’ll find ten hopeful moments from 2007. Each in its own way has set the stage for the year ahead:

1. Presidential Candidates Back Net Neutrality

For the first time in recent memory, communications policy became an issue on the campaign trail as presidential hopefuls came to realize that a people-powered Internet was good for everyone. Candidate after candidate (at least on the Democratic side) came out in support of a raft of an open Internet.

Hillary Clinton pledged her support for Net Neutrality in January. In May, John Edwards called for true open access while standing alongside millions of activists who support Net Neutrality. Barack Obama’s unveiled a comprehensive open technology plan during a November event at the “Googleplex.” Other candidates, including Mike Gravel, Christopher Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson expressed support for Net Neutrality, as did Mike Huckabee (albeit obliquely). Expect to hear more from all of those left in the race as new legislation is introduced in the House later this month.

2. iPhone Gives World a Glimpse of the Mobile Web

The geek idol of 2007 remains the iPhone, which despite all its faults (see last week’s No. 7) foretells a not-so-distant future where Internet access is constant for those on the go. The mobile Web - a promise made very real by the iPhone’s growing popularity - raised real questions about the policies that allowed carriers to control our mobile experience. Why should access to the free flowing Internet be limited by our choice of device?

According to Farhad Manjoo, the iPhone “forced us, for the first time, to confront the thorny public policy issues that the mobile Web will raise, issues sure to consume Silicon Valley, Hollywood and regulators in Washington for the foreseeable future.” We took issue when wired line ISPs played gatekeeper to the Web in our homes. We now will take issue with attempts by cellular carriers to wall off Internet access over wireless networks. In November, Google introduced “Android,” an open-source mobile phone operating platform. The iPhone and Android opened our eyes to the future and helped us make the case that the Internet - on any device - should be free and open.

3. Telcos Declare New Love for Open Access

A shift in spectrum policy forced the wireless carriers to declare a newfound love for openness. They were singing a different tune less than six months before when public interest groups called on the FCC to make “open access an absolute must” for the upcoming 700 MHz auction. The FCC responded in part by requiring that wireless carriers allow any legal device or application to operate on this new network.

Soon wireless network giant Verizon announced that it, too, believed opening their networks to any device was a good idea. AT&T’s wireless division followed suit declaring itself “the most open wireless company in the world,” where people were free to use any cell phone. What’s less clear - at least from their rhetoric — are the reasons these “walled gardens” changed their tune on open devices. (After all, Verizon is the same company that had filed suit against the FCC, calling its open requirements “arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and otherwise contrary to law.”)

The answer: Sound policy, public advocacy and consumer demand can force change to even the most entrenched ways of doing business. Had it not been for this potent political cocktail, the big carriers would have happily left their networks closed, their cell phones locked and their technologies far behind the curve.

4. We Told You So: Verizon, AT&T and Comcast Are the ‘Problem’

In 2007, the discriminatory tendencies of the would-be gatekeepers were dragged from beneath a rock for all to see. During a live Lollapalooza webcast of a Pearl Jam concert, AT&T muted lead singer Eddie Vedder just as he launched into a lyric criticizing President Bush. Later, Verizon Wireless blocked NARAL Pro-Choice America’s efforts to send mobile text messages to its members. Then Comcast was found secretly blocking peer-to-peer file sharing programs like BitTorrent and Gnutella.

While these violations made our list of the “Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007,” they demonstrate a pressing need for basic Internet protections. Net Neutrality is not “a solution in search of a problem,” as the telcos liked to say. Their actions made it patently clear that the problem is very real.

5. Congress Wakes Up, Holds Hearings, Pledges Action in ‘08

In 2007 the new Congress treated the Internet as more than just a “series of tubes” holding hearings in both chambers on a range of critical issues — from better data collection to cell phone freedom and Universal Service Fund reforms — designed to rescue America from its second-class broadband status. This was a sea change from the previous Congress, which tended to believe that the future of the “Internets” was best left to the whims of the phone and cable lobbyists. All told, there were nearly a dozen hearings in 2007, including rigorous debate on how public policy could foster free-market innovation, universal access and global competitiveness.

In the House, Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) championed calls for true open access. Across the hall, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N. Dakota), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) led the charge for Net Neutrality. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois experimented with legislation 2.0 when he opened the lines to public feedback to help him draft a much needed national broadband plan. As the United States continues to fall in international broadband rankings, policymakers trying to reverse the slide are a welcome change.

6. White Spaces Facts Beat Lobbyist Fictions

Last year, the FCC finally came to recognize the value of unlicensed spectrum, but it was not without a fight. The battle lines were drawn over the use of “white spaces” — vast tracts of unused airwaves that sit between television channels. New technologies will allow us to use these idle frequencies to connect millions of Americans to high-speed Internet services, especially people living in rural areas.

The only hurdle is to convince the FCC to unshackle white spaces. A number of new technology providers have lined up to offer mobile devices that could deliver high-speed internet services over these airwaves. But, true to form, Big Media companies and their lobbyists at the National Association of Broadcasters erected a façade of misinformation to stifle innovation and prevent Americans from using our airwaves for our own good. In press release after press release the NAB claimed that these new technologies were interfering with adjacent channels, despite mounting evidence that showed their claims to be untrue.

2008 will bring decisive action on white spaces. It’s increasingly hopeful that the truth will prevail over industry spin, and we will see this new technology emerge as an innovative alternative to phone and cable’s broadband cartel.

7. Strange Bedfellows Join Against Net Censorship

Verizon’s blocking of a NARAL Pro-Choice America text message sent to the group’s members sparked an unusual alliance with the Christian Coalition of America. Seeing a greater threat to free speech, these traditional foes co-wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post, calling on Congress to address censorship by phone companies and “guarantee the free flow of information.”

The détente recalled 2006 when the Gun Owners of America joined with MoveOn.org to support Net Neutrality. “Without statutory Net Neutrality, there is nothing to prevent big telecom companies from injecting political bias into modern communications,” the Gun Owners’ Craig Fields said during a press conference with MoveOn.org. “If the telecoms believe they can frame opposition to their power grab as a liberal or anti-free-market attack, they are sadly mistaken.”

Indeed, the fight for an open Internet involves supporters from every quarter with one glaring exception. Those opposing a neutral and accessible Internet seem limited to telco and cableco lobbyists and their paid allies. That open Internet protections are still disputed in Washington is a sad reflection of the degree to which these special interests dictate public policy in America.

8. Beyond the Beltway, Growing Grassroots Support

For too long spectrum and Internet policy has been the byproduct of backroom meetings between powerful industry lobbyists and government officials. In 2007, however, people discovered that Washington alone couldn’t be relied upon alone to protect their online freedom. Whenever members of Congress returned to their districts, there was a good chance they were met by constituents speaking out for an open Internet.

All told last year, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition convened 70 meetings between citizens and their elected representatives. In June, more than a quarter-million people wrote Washington in support of open access to wireless spectrum. A public outcry overwhelmed the FCC in July when tens of thousands told the agency why Net Neutrality mattered to them. (Well over 95 percent of the comments received by the agency called for Net Neutrality protections.)

We saw user revolts on social networking sites after people discovered that their privacy was under attack. After a carefully orchestrated member protest, Facebook’s CEO was forced to publicly apologize for Beacon, a company “service” that let others in on what users were buying online.

9. Public and Private Sector Unite Behind an Open Internet

The public and private sector realized that working together we could get Washington to take notice. Modeled after the SavetheInternet.com and Open Internet Coalitions of 2006, public advocates and businesses interests forged new alliances such as the Wireless Innovation Alliance (which is fighting for unlicensed use of “White Spaces”), the Wireless Founders Coalition (opening access to the airwaves), and the Open Handset Alliance (greater openness in the “mobile ecosystem”).

As these and other coalitions focus on 2008, the unity of the public and private interests shows that openness is not only good for users but a boon for business.

10. The Dawning of Participatory Politics

While “Internet 2.0″ jargon may have grown tired in 2007, a truly decentralized and participatory Internet became more real. Users took to available tools (and created some widgets of their own) on social networks — such as Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, YouTube and others — to organize others and make the Web experience their own.

More than a million Internet users fought the telcos to a stand still over Net Neutrality; campaigns rallied the youth vote and raised money on Facebook; bloggers were no longer treated as a political sideshow but helped shape many of the year’s main events; people formed online social networks and fan sites around political causes, sharing potent YouTube videos, music and games that had the potential to be seen, heard or played by millions.

The tools needed to organize and act on our beliefs are becoming more accessible online. With them, we can have a public conversation about what the future of the Internet and our country should look like — and finally gain an upper hand against the special interests that have dominated our democracy for generations.