Thanks!

Freedom of the press extends only to those who own one — or so the saying goes. It once rang true in a world ruled by newspaper chains, radio and television broadcasters, and cable networks.

But the Internet has changed all that, delivering the press — and in theory its freedoms — to any person with a good idea and a connection to the Web.

This extraordinary twist to “mass media” has catapulted many an everyday YouTube auteur to celebrity-status while turning ideas born in a garage or dorm room into Fortune 500 companies. It is the reason so many Americans are now passionate about protecting their right to choose on the Internet. But it’s also triggered a backlash from the old regime — media corporations that built their empires upon controlling the ebb and flow of information in America.

This list of media giants includes the nation’s largest phone and cable providers, who provide a portal to the high-speed Internet for more than 98 percent of residential users in America. Now they want to be more than just a window to the Web. These companies have proposed a closed scheme of Internet fees and filters that affords them the final say over which ideas make it to the top of the heap.

Say “goodbye” to indy rock bands breaking big via a backyard YouTube video and “hello” to censored rock-and-roll courtesy of AT&T’s “Blue Room.”

Open v. Closed — A Clash of Cultures

This closed business model has proven a financial windfall for the gatekeepers of traditional media. But it comes at a too heavy a cost to the millions of Americans who see the open Internet as the 21st Century’s catalyst for free speech and opportunity.

It’s against the backdrop of this clash of cultures — open versus closed — that an unusual series of official events have occurred this year.

Washington — where lobbyists for Comcast, AT&T and Verizon have long had the home-field advantage — recently witnessed an extraordinary series of public meetings and congressional hearings on the fate of the Internet. If you listen carefully, you might actually hear the people’s interests being represented. They are certainly being expressed.

The 110th Congress has called Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, and Chad Hurley, the founder of YouTube, to testify in favor of Net Neutrality — the principle that safeguards the Internet against blocking and censorship from Internet service providers. In recent weeks, leading consumer and Internet rights advocates, Silicon Valley’s top entrepreneurs and Hollywood’s creative community have testified that an open Internet is vital to the health of our economy and democracy.

The Federal Communications Commission has gone one further, venturing beyond the Beltway to take the public temperature on the Internet.

At hearings in Cambridge, Mass., and Palo Alto, Calif., the agency got an earful; hundreds of Net Neutrality supporters stood before the microphone to condemn Comcast’s recent efforts to block people from using peer-to-peer applications, which make possible the sharing of videos and other rich media without the need for corporate media to broker the content. One after the other. people called on the federal agency for basic protections against Comcast’s brand of digital discrimination.

The New Free Speech Movement

They are not alone. A growing movement of Internet users is pushing for legislation to stop would-be gatekeepers from re-routing the free-flowing Web. It has attracted millions of supporters ranging from MoveOn.org to the Christian Coalition of America, from independent rockers OK Go to the executive producer of the TV show “Hannah Montana.”

Our voices are starting to rise above the din of lobbyists that too often drowns out genuine public debate in Washington. It’s now up to our elected officials to act.

The official inquiry on Net Neutrality has given a public voice to the remarkable consensus in favor of free speech and user choice on the Web. And it may turn out to be more than show. The bipartisan “Internet Freedom Preservation Act” is making its way through the House at this very moment. It is a bill that takes into account the many voices that have spoken out since Net Neutrality became a much-debated principle.

Fundamentally, this bill recognizes that we must establish baseline protection for an unfettered Internet. It doesn’t call for Web regulation, but gives the public the power to stop the old regime from turning the Internet from a revolution of the many into a funnel for the few.

And that’s a freedom worth fighting for.

While Comcast’s blocking is the most talked about violation of Net Neutrality, new information calls into question AT&T’s offering of unfettered access to the Internet.

Before their reincarnation as AT&T the phone company — following their merger with SBC — they were AT&T, the long distance company. (You may remember their never-ending ad campaign, 1-800-CALL-ATT.) The difference between the new AT&T and the old one is the latter didn’t control any wires — they just used them. This distinction is at the center of the debate over Net Neutrality - the idea that those who own the wires cannot block or discriminate against the content flowing over the network.

As a long distance provider, AT&T relied on Net Neutrality rules to ensure access to the customers at the end of these wires. This changed after the company merged with SBC, and then BellSouth, making it the largest Internet service provider in the country. (This chart may help you make sense of this merger craze.) Once it gained power over customer’s Internet connections, AT&T turned into an ardent Net Neutrality opponent.

A Telco’s Change of Heart

On May 28, 2004, AT&T lawyers said:

“The Internet has flourished to date because of openness. Network owners do not tell subscribers which Web sites they can visit or which applications they can run over their Internet connections. …. The commission can directly prevent anticompetitive use of broadband transport facilities and foster unimpeded access to IP applications with modest technology neutral conduct regulation that merely prohibits broadband carriers from discriminating against unaffiliated IP applications an content.”

But here’s AT&T on June 15, 2007:

“There is no need to subject the Internet to a scheme of ‘nondiscrimination’ rules to protect anyone against anticompetitive conduct.”

And: “There is no potential upside to Net Neutrality regulation.”

And finally: “These ‘blocking’ concerns are a sham.”

AT&T Caught Blocking?

Peer-to-peer video distributer Vuze Inc, recently collected information that raises the question of whether AT&T customers were being provided a full and unfettered connection to the Web.

Given the lack of candid disclosure from Internet providers like AT&T, Vuze’s report attempts to shed much-needed light on whether these companies are providing customers with an open Internet experience.

If only AT&T would remember the way they used to be. It’s time they stopped fighting against the wishes of their own customers and started fighting for them.