Thanks!

Decisions made by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission in the next few years — if not sooner — will determine whether we protect free speech online, close the digital divide, and bring a greater diversity of voices to this transformative medium.

The world of technology is rapidly changing. Pretty soon, you’ll get all your media — TV, phone, radio and the Web — from the same high-speed Internet connection. The potential democratic, economic, public safety and educational benefits of the Internet are almost limitless. Wiring our nation with a high-speed Internet connection is now a public necessity, just like water, gas or electricity.

Unfortunately, the powerful cable and telecom industry doesn’t value the Internet for its public interest benefits. Instead, these companies too often believe that to safeguard their profits, they must control what content you see and how you get it. Their plans could have dire consequences for those whose voices are often marginalized by our nation’s media system.

For communities of color, the Internet offers a critical opportunity to build a more equitable media system. It provides all Americans with the potential to speak for themselves without having to convince large media conglomerates that their voices are worthy of being heard.

Net Neutrality Is Internet Freedom

Our Internet freedom is protected by a fundamental principle called “Network Neutrality,” which allows the public to access any Web site or any Web application of their choice without discrimination. Net Neutrality has been the guiding principle of the Internet since its inception — but now it’s in danger.

Big phone and cable companies want to decide for you which Web sites and services go fast or slow. While the big corporate sites, especially the ones owned by these companies, get a spot in the fast lane on the information superhighway, everyone else — small businesses, independent publications, community groups — will be stuck on the slow road to irrelevance.

These companies spend a lot of money spreading misinformation about their plans. They’ve said there’s no evidence that they’re going to interfere with the Internet and that they can trusted to do the right thing. But actions speak louder than words.

Comcast Blocks Innovation

In the most glaring example, last October the Associated Press found that cable giant Comcast was crippling a popular way of sharing large files called BitTorrent — which allows people to quickly download large files such as videos, movies, and music without using a lot of bandwidth.

BitTorrent is perfectly legal. Hollywood studios and music companies use BitTorrent to distribute high quality films, TV shows and music. Even NASA has started using it to send high-resolution photos from outer space. Bit Torrent also provides Internet users with an online version of video-on-demand, allowing them to easily download content of their choosing. It is an ideal application for independent artists and individuals seeking an inexpensive distribution system.

Comcast claims BitTorrent users are hogging the network. But they don’t just cut off high-volume users trying to download 20 movies at a time. They block everybody. AP reporters weren’t even able to share a copy of the Bible.

Here’s what Comcast really doesn’t like about BitTorrent: It’s competition for their own video business. If we can pick and choose what we want to see for ourselves, we might be less inclined to keep paying Comcast an arm and a leg for all the channels we don’t watch.

Comcast is abusing its power. And their actions clearly violate FCC rules that say the Internet can be accessed by users without restrictions. After public interest groups led by Free Press filed a complaint — and thousands of angry Internet users flooded their in-boxes — the FCC launched an official investigation.

This investigation may well determine whether the Internet will remain open and free. After claiming they would never discriminate, Comcast is now trying to undermine the guiding principles of Network Neutrality by blocking whatever they want. The other big Internet providers — like AT&T, Verizon and Time Warner — filed in support of Comcast’s right to discriminate because they want to do the same thing.

A History of Discrimination

Communities of color and other under-represented groups have long fought for a more diverse and inclusive media system. Discrimination and segregation prevented people of color from obtaining radio or TV licenses when these mediums were first created. During the 1970s, cable promised to be a real alternative to TV for communities of color seeking diverse programming; it didn’t happen. Yet, many of these very same companies now want to prevent Internet users, including people of color, from accessing diverse online content of their choice.

While our nation must overcome the digital divide so everyone will have high-speed broadband access, the principles of Network Neutrality are important to ensure the Internet provides a real opportunity for all Americans to speak with their own voices.

The FCC’s investigation of Comcast — and passage of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (HR 5353), bipartisan legislation now pending in Congress to protect Net Neutrality — will go a long way toward determining whether the Internet will protect the First Amendment rights of all Internet users and whether people of color will finally have unfettered access to a equitable media system.

Make your voices heard. The stakes couldn’t be any higher.

This post was written by Mark Lloyd, author of Prologue to a Farce, and Joseph Torres of Free Press. It originally appeared here.

Reprinted with permission from the Guardian

There’s a classic scene in The Matrix, where Morpheus (the Laurence Fishburne character) offers Neo (played by Keanu Reeves), a fateful choice.

He holds out two pills. Take the blue pill, he says, and you go back to a life of clock-punching drudgery where your every move is monitored. Take the red one, and you get spaceships, kung-fu and a leather-clad Carrie-Anne Moss.

Take away the martial arts, and Morpheus could just as well be describing the monumental choice Americans are facing today over the future of the Internet. Only it’s not science fiction.

Over the next few years, Congress, the Federal Communications Commission and the next president will shape the Internet for a generation. Down one path is a closed Internet experience tightly controlled by a small handful of giant corporations. Down the other is the open Internet, with all its possibilities.

Closed for Business

Who wants you to swallow the blue pill? Meet the nation’s biggest telecom and cable companies, a cartel that dominates 99% of the U.S. residential market for high-speed Internet access. These firms — led by AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to exploit their gatekeeper power to decide what you can do on the web.

That’s not what they say in their ubiquitous ads, of course. But watch their actions closely — or squint at the fine print in the terms of service — and you’ll get a glimpse of their plans.

These companies are lobbying furiously to kill “Network Neutrality,” the longstanding principle that prevents them from discriminating against Web sites or services based on their source, ownership or destination.

Comcast was recently caught blocking users of file-sharing services, cutting off access to legal content — including a download of the King James Bible. Their “network management” is really just an attempt to undercut potential competitors in the video business, while avoiding sorely needed network upgrades.

Verizon censored text messages sent by NARAL Pro-Choice America to its own members. Only after the incident appeared on the front page of the New York Times did Verizon correct its “glitch” and let the messages go through.

AT&T plans to “filter” content to ferret out pirated material on its networks. The company - the same one seeking retroactive immunity for spying on your phone calls - would use copyright protection as a Trojan horse to inspect everything travelling over its pipes and control how audio and video are distributed on the Web.

The Open Road

An open Internet looks quite different. It starts with Net Neutrality, which guarantees a level playing field and gives the little guy the same chance as Google to come up with the next big thing. (Remember, it wasn’t Comcast or AT&T that invented YouTube, blogs, eBay or almost anything else that makes the internet so great.) On an open Internet, a provider’s only job is to move data — not degrade, inspect or censor content.

An open Internet also means more competition and choices. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has abandoned the “open access” requirements that once forced telecom companies to share their wires to ensure a competitive market. When it comes to broadband, most U.S. consumers now are lucky to have two choices: the phone or the cable company. Contrast this with the dozens of providers competing for your business overseas. No wonder Americans pay far more for slower speeds than consumers in Europe and Asia.

We need to open up the wireless networks, too. Mobile devices are how many of us will access the Internet in the future. But U.S. consumers are shackled with punitive, long-term contracts as new technology is kept behind walled gardens. (If you want an iPhone, your only option is to sign up with AT&T.) Why can’t we use any phone or software we want on all networks?

The answer comes down to policy decisions - mostly bad ones. For too long, our policies have been crafted behind closed doors by high-priced lobbyists and clueless politicians. It’s scandalous that we’ve reached this critical juncture without a truly public conversation about what the future of the Internet should look like.

Taking it Public

Instead of aiding and abetting another massive giveaway to the phone and cable companies, our legislators and regulators need to get outside Washington. We need old-fashioned town meetings and online forums about the Internet’s future in every state, if not every congressional district.

Unless you’re a phone or cable company executive, it’s hard to imagine anyone who opposes universal, affordable access to an open internet for everyone. Already, nearly 2 million people have contacted Congress and the FCC about the once-obscure issue of Net Neutrality. Can you think of another issue that unites MoveOn.org and the Christian Coalition, PETA and the Gun Owners of America, Amazon.com and the American Library Association?

Putting an open Internet on the national agenda this election year and into 2009 will require an unusual combination of dedicated politicians, high-tech companies that see beyond their own narrow interests, and innovative grassroots organising online and off. And we can count on the phone and cable giants — with their limitless lobbying budgets and bulging campaign coffers — to put up a fight.

But as Morpheus once said: “I didn’t say it would be easy, Neo. I just said it would be the truth.”

Comcast’s new “terms of service,” which were quietly issued last week, remove any doubt about who the cable and broadband giant is looking out for — and it’s not the customer.

On Jan. 25, the company released its “revised and effective” terms for Internet users with lots of restrictions and new limitations — but little fanfare. No press release. No announcement to customers.

Guest Post by Marvin Ammori, Free Press General Counsel

Just a Web-accessible document that, fortunately for me, was forwarded by networking guru Robb Topolski. Upon reading the document Comcast’s relative silence becomes clear. Why publicize a limited and throttled service when you are pitching “unlimited” Internet access to your customers?

After having been caught lying to users and the press for years, Comcast is now basically saying: Our network sucks, and we can block your peer-to-peer connections — and everything else — for any or no reason. And since the FCC’s competition policy lets us operate with no competitors — where else are you going to go?

But wait, there’s more:

1. Comcast thinks you’re a virus.

Comcast says it needs to manage its network to protect users from “the negative effects of spam, viruses, security attacks, network congestion, and other risks and degradations of service.” Let’s put this is plain English:

As a Comcast customer, you pay $40-$60 for what’s been sold as a 6 Mbps unlimited service. Let’s forget that you’re overpaying compared to European and Asian countries for speeds that are 20-to-100 times slower.

If you want to use Comcast’s service as it has been advertised, you’ll be treated like spam or a virus. You are like a security attack to them. Instead of using the Comcast service as it has been billed, send Comcast your monthly check and, I don’t know, read a book. Watch a play. Just don’t use the network you paid for. Because Comcast can’t handle the load.

2. Comcast throws its buddies under the bus.

Comcast is taking a lot of heat. The FCC is investigating the company after blocking complaints from consumers and a petition filed by public interest advocates.

The FCC responded by asking for public comments before they determine a course of action. More than 15,000 Americans have already weighed in, most complaining about Comcast’s blocking a wide range of applications — including the popular peer-to-peer services offered by BiTorrent and others.

Comcast’s excuse? The company says its practices are “consistent with industry standards.” It claims that many Internet providers “use the same or similar tools that Comcast does.”

This is called the first-grader defense: If caught stealing candy, be sure to blame others kids for doing the same. Most adults wouldn’t try this excuse. But if you give millions in campaign contributions and support an army of connected lobbyists, you might just think you can get away with it in Washington.

What’s lurking behind Comcast’s defense is even more alarming. Comcast could be right that content discrimination is industry-wide. If so, the FCC should begin with Comcast and then dig deeper — start investigating the “content-shaping” practices of the phone and cable duopoly that control 96 percent of America’s residential broadband market.

3. Comcast violates its own terms of service.

One of Comcast’s 12 “conduct restrictions” states that users can’t “impersonate any person or entity, engage in sender address falsification, forget anyone else’s digital or manual signature.” But this is a classic case of “do as I say, not as I do.”

To block protocols, Comcast and its vendors impersonate both the sender and the receiver — dressing themselves up as the user to transmit a message that breaks off the connection.

Imagine if the operator were to break into your phone call, impersonate your voice, tell your mother you didn’t want to talk with her, and hang up the receiver. Comcast thinks that would be “reasonable” — even though it’s in direct violation of the company’s own terms of service.

4. Comcast sucks: please use our product less.

In its new terms of service, Comcast essentially admits that it has built its product poorly and lied to customers about “unfettered,” “always-on” access. It states that it must “temporarily delay peer-to-peer sessions (or sessions using other applications or protocols) during periods of high network congestion.” Let’s unpack this. “Delaying” is a lie. What Comcast is doing is terminating connections.

The company calls it “delaying” on the assumption that users will try to connect at a later time — but when you’re “delayed” for three hours, do you stay at your computer hitting refresh over and over? Some peer-to-peer applications just give up after a delay.

But Comcast isn’t just delaying peer-to-peer sessions — it’s delaying sessions using “other” applications and protocols. Translation: “We block whatever we want, whenever. And we say that it’s OK for us to do this … on page five of our online terms of service.”

Finally, what are periods of “high network congestion?” If Comcast’s network could handle more traffic, there’d be few times of the day with congestion. But when you have a crappy network, “network congestion” is “always-on.”

We’ve seen no evidence that Comcast is only blocking during periods of congestion. We’ve seen Comcast blocking any time and at random — even attempts to upload small files such as the King James Bible.

Also, users are also forbidden from — intentionally or unintentionally – “generating levels of traffic sufficient to impede others’ ability to use, send, or retrieve information.” This makes no sense. In general, cable users in a local area “share” the same bandwidth, so generating any traffic at all impacts other users trying to use the network.

Let’s be honest — it’s Comcast, not users, impeding other users. Comcast says “network resources are not unlimited.” But it is Comcast that didn’t build a network robust enough to handle how consumers now want to use the Internet. We’ve left the 20th century.

The reality is that Comcast should have invested in a better network with more capacity. It’s time for the cable giant to come clean that what it’s selling isn’t the real Internet — it’s the crippled Comcastic version.

5. Comcast censors free speech.

The “conduct restrictions” in Comcast’s terms of service could fill the syllabus of a law school course on the First Amendment. Comcast forbids users from sending “libelous” or “threatening” material, or material “which infringes the intellectual property rights of any person.”

Another restriction forbids users from disseminating information a “reasonable person” would consider indecent. If the government were imposing these vague, undefined, restrictions, based on a “reasonable person,” the terms would be struck down — with Justices Alito, Thomas, and Breyer arm-in-arm — as flagrant violations of freedom of speech.

But because the government has “deregulated” Internet delivery, private companies like AT&T (which spies on Americans for the government) and Comcast can censor speech. In the words of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, government cannot “inject federally authorized private censors into forums from which they might otherwise be excluded, and … therefore limit local forums that might otherwise be open to all constitutionally protected speech.”

The bottom line is that we can’t trust Comcast — or any other Internet service provider — with the future of the Internet. And we shouldn’t have to.