Verizon's Cozy Deal With Cable Would Create a Wireless Duopoly

Tuesday, 03 April 2012

By Mike Ludwig, Truthout | Report
Verizon Wireless and America's biggest cable companies want to sell you everything in one package: wireless, broadband, cable TV and a telephone landline. This might sound like an easy option, but consumer groups say that the consolidation deals behind these service bundles could crush competition in the market and raise prices for everyone.

Verizon Wireless plans to purchase $3.6 billion worth of unused wireless spectrum from a joint venture representing the big cable providers Comcast, Time Warner and Bright House Networks. Verizon is also buying $315 million worth of spectrum from the Cox cable company. In a separate deal that anti-trust watchdogs brought to the attention of regulators, Verizon and the four cable companies will also market each others' products under a controversial joint-marketing agreement. Consumers could, for instance, buy a wireless plan from Verizon when purchasing cable Internet from Comcast.

Verizon claims it's trying to boost 4G coverage, meet the growing demand created by smartphone technology and offer customers some one-stop shopping. Opponents of the deal, however, say Verizon already holds the greatest amount of prime mobile broadband spectrum. If the proposed deal goes through, Verizon and its biggest competitor, AT&T, would hold more wireless spectrum nationally than all other providers combined and essentially become a market duopoly, according to Parul Desai of the Consumer Union, which publishes Consumer Reports.

Desai said the whole deal would reduce competition among all the companies involved. Verizon is essentially giving the cable companies control of the landlines and the cable companies are giving Verizon control of the wireless spectrum. Verizon would have little incentive to compete with the cable companies with its FiOS high-speed wired Internet service, and cable companies would have little incentive to compete for wireless service. Time Warner, Cox and Comcast already operate as monopolies in some regions, Desai said, and the deal could leave consumers with little or no choice in landline and broadband providers.

Desai said the cable companies had begun to invest in wireless, which is why the companies have unused spectrum to sell, but once they realized it would be tough to compete with Verizon Wireless and AT&T, they decided to sell out their holdings in exchange for a firmer grip on landlines.

"The wireless side will be dominated by Verizon Wireless, and they'll get out of the landline game, and cable will get out of the wireless game so they can dominate the landline game," Desai said. "... So what happens when you sell the spectrum and it continues to go to the top two players? It makes it easier to squeeze out some of the smaller players."

Two smaller telecommunication firms, Level 3 Communications and MetroPCS, have filed briefs with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) opposing the deal. Desai said the deal isn't just bad for smaller firms; it's also bad for consumers, who will be left with fewer options and could eventually pay higher prices because Verizon and the cable companies will not be competing with one another.

Rural consumers could be especially affected because the companies will have less incentive to expand infrastructure to underserved areas, and by reducing competition, rural consumers could pay higher prices and even lose services, according to Edyael Casaperalta, who works to bring high-speed Internet access to rural areas with the Center for Rural Strategies. Rural residents are often low income, Casaperalta said, and may not be able to afford bundled packages offered under the joint-marketing agreement.

"Knowing that there's a lack of interest in rural customers, there's already less competition for rural customers to be able to get better services and better prices, and this type of transaction will create even less competition, if any at all," Casaperalta said.

The Justice Department and the FCC are currently reviewing the proposed deal, and the FCC must approve the spectrum transfers. In December, just days before Verizon announced its deal with the cable companies, AT&T and T-Mobile abandoned a $39 billion merger andplaced the blame on regulators. AT&T canceled the acquisition, which critics feared would also create a wireless duopoly, after resistance in the FCC and legal challenges spooked investors.

Congress is also weighing in on the Verizon deal. On March 21, the Senate Antitrust Committee held a hearing on the deal titled "The Verizon/Cable Deals: Harmless Collaboration or a Threat to Competition and Consumers?" The hearing featured Comcast and Verizon executives butting heads with consumer advocates.

Verizon Executive Vice President Randal Milch told the committee that Verizon needs more spectrum to respond to the growing demand caused by the "explosive" use of smartphones, tablets, and other data-intensive devices.

"We are only buying spectrum not currently in commercial use in order to put it to use serving customers, and no customer will see fewer choices or increased prices as a result of this transaction," Milch said.

Joel Kelsey of the Free Press, a media policy group, told the committee that it's always dangerous to consumers when media consolidations reduces competition.

"Allowing for further consolidation in this marketplace will only drive prices higher, reduce consumer choice, and have drastic consequences on the rate of innovation as the companies involved are freed from competition and find diminishing value in investing in better infrastructure," Kelsey said.

The proposed deal also raised ire among unions, but instead of outright opposing a deal that labor groups see as a potential job killer, two unions have proposed stipulations to the FCC. The Communications Workers of America and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers have asked the FCC to only approve the deal if Verizon agrees to continue developing its FiOS Internet service, which they fear could go under if Verizon decides not to compete in the landline market. The unions also asked the FCC to prohibit cross-marketing services in Verizon territory and require that the companies allow customers to buy individual services at bundle prices without buying the whole service bundle.

Astroturfing Net Neutrality

Tuesday, April 19, 2011 by Save the Internet
by Tim Karr

Free speech online has come under withering attack from the Astroturf lobby -- corporate front groups that are determined to hand control of the Internet to companies like AT&T and Comcast.

They've joined the forces of the Tea Party and pro-corporate attack groups like Americans for Prosperity to urge weak members of Congress to betray the public interest by voting to strip the Federal Communications Commission of its ability to protect our basic freedom to access an open Internet.

And betray us is exactly what House representatives did earlier this month, passing a "Resolution of Disapproval" (H.J. Res. 37), which is designed to let phone and cable companies block any speech they don't like, charge users anything they can get away with, and hold innovation hostage to their profit margins.

If this resolution gets by the Senate and White House, there will be little anyone could do to stop these companies. The good new is that President Obama has already vowed to veto this resolution. (You can make sure that it doesn't get to his desk by urging your senators to kill H.J Res. 37).

The aim of front groups supporting this industry agenda is to stoke partisan rancor and fear over a principle called Net Neutrality -- a basic rule that keeps service providers from deciding what content we get to see and share via digital networks.

A favorite line of theirs is to portray Net Neutrality as part of a left-wing conspiracy, dismissing the vast coalition of people of every political stripe who believe that an open Internet is a basic requirement of a healthy, modern democracy.

An article earlier this month at Andrew Breitbart's website Big Government painted Net Neutrality as "oppressive" and "leftists policies" and urged readers to phone up Democrats and urge their vote for a Congressional "Resolution of Disapproval" that had been embraced by Rep. Michele Bachmann and pushed by House Speaker John Boehner.

Americans for Prosperity, the industry-funded Astroturf group with deep ties to the Koch Brothers, had asked its members to send letters to these and other congressional offices calling Net Neutrality "Obama's Internet takeover."

"Regulating the Internet under the banner of so-called network neutrality has been a far-left obsession for years," argues Americans for Prosperity VP of Policy Phil Kerpen.

Rhetoric aside -- it’s worth noting that companies like AT&T and Comcast have delivered truckloads of money to the re-election campaigns of most of those who voted against Net Neutrality. A recent report by MapLight.org illustrates the corrupting influence corporate donations have had in “convincing” members of Congress to turn against the interests of their constituents on this issue.

In the House, front groups' targeted Democratic Reps. Jason Altmire (PA-4), Sanford Bishop (GA-2), Leonard Boswell (IA-3), Jim Costa (CA-20), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Reuben Hinojosa (TX-15), Tim Holden (PA-17), Rick Larsen (WA-2), Mike McIntyre (NC-7), Jerry McNerney (CA-11), Gregory Meeks (NY-6), David Scott (GA-13), and Heath Shuler (NC-11).

Of these, only two – Reps. Bishop and Scott – caved to industry pressure by voting for the resolution. But most every one has received considerable sums from the phone and cable lobby.

Now members of the Senate are hearing the same tune.

This push comes at a time when phone and cable companies have begun limiting our ability to connect with others and share information. Some like MetroPCS have already announced plans to block certain video applications via the mobile Web. Corporations like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon are seeking to degrade access to competing services or sites that might threaten their bottom line; they’re also moving to penalize users who use their Internet connection for more data-intensive purposes than simple Web surfing.

Net Neutrality – like the First Amendment itself – is an issue that should transcend politics.

Despite the partisan blather, it has received support from all corners -- from the socially conservative Christian Coalition to the rights advocates at ACLU, from librarians and educators to video gamers, journalists, musicians and even Harry Potter fans.

More than two million Americans have sent letters to the FCC and Congress urging leaders to "stand with the public by protecting Net Neutrality once and for all."

That's what real grassroots look like.

Just last week, Internet pioneer and die-hard Net Neutrality supporter Tim Berners-Lee said that access to the open Internet is "human right" that we all have "duty" to protect.

He’s right.

But don’t let that stop the hyperventilating among Beltway hacks intent on turning this into a divisive and politically charged issue.

Members of Congress without regard to party or ideology should ignore the astroturfing of a few to protect an open Internet that helps so many.

The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time

tuesday, December 21, 2010 by The Huffington Post
by Sen. Al Franken

This Tuesday is an important day in the fight to save the Internet.

As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.

This principle is called "net neutrality" -- and it's under attack. Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to pay for it.

The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't do that at all. They're worse than nothing.

That's why Tuesday is such an important day. The FCC will be meeting to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply unacceptable.

Although Chairman Genachowski's draft Order has not been made public, early reports make clear that it falls far short of protecting net neutrality.

For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.

Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).

It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid prioritization" (the creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who can afford to pay for it) is cause for concern.

It sure is -- but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead, the draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions on this kind of discrimination.

What's more, even the protections that are established in the draft Order would be weak because it defines "broadband Internet access service" too narrowly, making it easy for powerful corporations to get around the rules.

Here's what's most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and President Obama -- who nominated him -- have argued convincingly that they support net neutrality.

But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder if we've been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it.

No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that his agency is supposed to regulate -- and no true advocate of a free and open Internet should be seeking the permission of large media conglomerates before issuing new rules.

After all, just look at Comcast -- this Internet monolith has reportedly imposed a new, recurring fee on Level 3 Communications, the company slated to be the primary online delivery provider for Netflix. That's the same Netflix that represents Comcast's biggest competition in video services.

Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited only to Comcast's Video On Demand service. Imagine if a cable news network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we know it would cease to exist.

That's why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our time. And that's why, this Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss this badly flawed proposal, I'll be watching. If they approve it as is, I'll be outraged. And you should be, too.

How Comcast and Huge Telecom Players' Latest Gambit Could Destroy the Internet as We Know It

The telecom wars are heating up and the American Internet user is the proverbial pig on the spit.
By David Rosen, AlterNet
Posted on December 21, 2010

On December 21st, the Federal Communications Commission issued new rules governing Internet transmission. In essence, they effectively divide broadband content distribution between wireline and wireless transmission, providing nominal “net neutrality” protection over content distributed over telephone and cable lines, but deregulating such content sent through the airwaves.

As Timothy Karr of FreePress wrote in the Huffington Post:

“The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it's become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.”

While Karr and others are focusing on the front story and the FCC’s capitulation to corporate interests, there is a more compelling back story as to how this regulatory farce came about. It is this story that maps out the underlying fictions that provide the rationale for the FCC’s actions and the likely long-term consequences for telecommunications in America.

* * *

As the telecom wars heat up, the American Internet user is the proverbial pig on the spit. A series of recent developments have drawn public attention to major challenges that are redefining the Internet. And it doesn’t look good for those championing Internet freedom, meaningful competition, improved quality of service or an end to conglomerate integration. Sadly, the fix is in.

In May, the DC Court of Appeals handed down a decision to what is popularly know as the BitTorrent case, Comcast v FCC. Originally, Comcast had blocked BitTorrent transmissions over its network and BitTorrent complained. The FCC investigated Comcast's traffic management of BitTorrent and ordered it to end its "discriminatory" practices. However, the Court ruled that Comcast has the right to limit the Internet connections of its customers who were using BitTorrent’s peer-to-peer (p2p) services on the grounds that such limiting falls under the role of network maintenance. More critical, the Court raised serious questions as to whether the FCC has the ability to regulate broadband Internet access altogether.

A few months later, Level 3 Communications drew the public’s attention to an effort by Comcast to impose a new pricing tier or “toll booth” on its transport of Netflix’s streaming video. This comes amidst deliberations by the FCC and Justice Department over Comcast’s bid to acquire NBC-Universal and a string of other questionable actions, including censorship charges, leveled against the company.

The BitTorrent and Level 3 actions were trial balloons pointing to deeper issues related to the future of broadband Internet. On one level, they reveal how key players in “content” – and especially video content – delivery are lining up against one another over, what else, money, or how the fees they charge are to be allocated.

More significantly, the battle puts into stark relief the issues of who controls the wires and wireless spectrum, the backbone of America’s communications infrastructure. Internet traffic, whether that of BitTorrent, Netflix or your email, is transmitted over the primary wires and spectrum controlled by AT&T, Comcast, Verizon and other networks and wireless services. The Internet rides over these wires and airwaves, and these companies control the access points.

The battle lines are being drawn over three key issues. First, will the current distribution model known for an open Internet, with “net neutrality” safeguards, persist – in other words, will all data continue to travel over telecom networks at the same rate and remain uncensored by Internet Service Providers (ISPs), excluding “illegal” content like child pornography?

Second, will the current consolidation of ISPs persist with giant, integrated conglomerates like Comcast and Time Warner controlling both the network and the content -- or will there be a renewed commitment to “open architecture,” to an Internet promoting meaningful competition among multiple access and content providers on the basis of services offered and prices charged?

Third, will the FCC further extend its 2002 reclassification of broadband service as an “information service,” thus further removing data transport from traditional “common carriage” obligations? Will it further collapse the difference between the Internet as a distribution network from the content or applications it supports?

FCC chairman Julius Genachowski December 21st announcement is a fictions compromise, like Obama’s plan to extend the Bush-era tax give-a-ways, and will only serve to further commercialize Internet traffic. His support for "usage-based pricing" will permit wireline ISPs to charge extra fees to heavy Internet users, like Level 3, who transport lots of video or videogames. And, in keeping with the Obama spirit of compromise, he opposes ISPs from “throttling” or slowing data traffic, thus protecting one aspect of net neutrality.

The FCC proposal is another example of how Washington politicians and their dutiful bureaucrats capitulate to big capital to the determinant of ordinary Americans and the long-term erosion of the U.S. economy. The FCC’s plan will set the stage for another round of federal give-a-ways to the giant telecoms, accompanied by an increase in customer charges and a further erosion of service.

* * *

At the heart of the FCC proposed new pricing models for the Internet is the shibboleth of network data traffic congestion. It is an alarm being raised by many within the telecommunications industry and is based on the false assumption that, as video becomes an increasing larger proportion of data traffic on the Web, the network is in jeopardy of collapse. The myth of congestion provides the rationale for a new pricing model as well as the need to end net neutrality and restrict ISP competition.

The Internet and Web consists of four interlinked components: (i) the phone or cable company that provides the “last mile” facilitating the consumer’s broadband connectivity through the residential telephone company’s digital subscriber line (DSL) or cable modem fiber line; (ii) the ISP that connects the customer to the PoP (point-of-presence) on the Internet and World Wide Web, (iii) the “middle mile” provider that links the customer to wider network; and (iv) the provider of long distance, high-speed connections to the network “backbone.”

While the middle mile and backbone utilize high-capacity fiber networks, the crunch comes at the last mile. And it is this piece of the grid that reflects the telecom trust’s failure to upgrade its networks. They have pocketed billions of dollars in subsides and tax breaks and have little to improve their networks. As with most American industrial sectors, the demands for short-term profits makes telecommunications providers unable to meet long-term market demands. No wonder the U.S. ranks 15th among developed counties in terms of broadband utilization.

According to a recent report from Cisco Systems, by the end of 2010, worldwide global online video users are projected to surpass 1 billion and video is projected to account for 40 percent of consumer Internet traffic. The traffic includes Internet video from YouTube, TV programs from Hulu, video-on-demand like Netflix movies and p2p sharing like BitTorrent. Enhanced video quality like 3D and HD only further compounds the video signal.

Online traffic grew 45 percent during 2009 to 176 exabytes per year (an exabyte consists of a million trillion bytes) and is projected to reach 767 exabytes per year by 2014. According to Cisco, this means: “The average monthly traffic in 2014 will be equivalent to 32 million people streaming Avatar in 3D, continuously for the entire month.”

Determining U.S. Internet video traffic is much trickier. Sandvine, an Ontario-based network services company, found that in the August-September 2010 period, North Americans gobbled up only one-third as much broadband video as users in the Asia-Pacific region; North Americans consumed an estimated 4 Gigabytes per month of Internet bandwidth whereas those in Asia-Pacific region used 12 Gigabytes. Sandvine also found that Netflix, with nearly 17 million subscribers, accounted for more than 20 percent of downstream Internet traffic during the primetime TV viewing hours of 8 to 10 p.m.

ComScore, a Reston, VA, market research firm, offers a different take on Internet video usage. It found, in May 2010, that 183 million U.S. Internet users watched nearly 34 billion online videos. Google sites, especially YouTube, account for 14.6 billion videos, representing 43.1 percent of all videos viewed online. Hulu, a joint venture of NBC and FOX and aggregating videos from nearly 200 content providers, came in second with 1.2 billion videos (3.5%), with other sites trailing behind.

Champions of the telecom trust rallied to the Sandvine findings as proof of network congestion and the basis to impose a new pricing model. This model goes by a variety of names, "usage-based pricing,” "paid prioritization" and “pay-as-you-go Internet access,” among others. Kyle McSlarrow, president, Nation Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group, recently wrote that the cable industry backs the new pricing model: "A usage-based pricing model, for instance, might help spur adoption by price-sensitive consumers at the lower end of the socioeconomic ladder," he wrote. Craig Moffett, an analyst at Bernstein Research, chimed in with an investor’s glee: "Usage-based pricing will preserve, and even enhance, the economics of cable's infrastructure . . . even if consumers eventually get some, or even all, of their video content over the Web."

Peter Burrows, of Bloomberg Businessweek, takes the argument one step further. Drawing upon research from Juniper Networks, he insists that, based on a "revenue-per-bit" model, the big telecom conglomerates like AT&T and Comcast “will see [their] Internet revenues grow by 5 percent a year through 2020,” but traffic will “surge by 27 percent annually.” “By this math,” he insists, “the carriers' business models break down in 2014.” Or does it?

* * *

Freud once famously noted, “"Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe." And sometimes it isn’t. This is the same with Internet traffic congestion.

The Internet has evolved through three phases and each has been defined by “congestion.” The first phase, during the pre-1990s when the Internet had yet become a mass-market phenomenon, congestion was experienced in email delays, limits to bulk file transfers and low bit rate interactive sessions. The second phase of the 1990s saw rapid Internet adoption with dial-up accounts offering 56.6 kb/s rates and congestion taking the form of a slow system with only intermittent connectivity. In a famous 1995 case, the phone companies attempted to block companies offering the new service, Voice-over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP), on the base of, yes, congestion; companies like Vonage would not exist today had the telecoms had their way. The third phase began around 2000 and saw the wide-scale adoption of broadband. It eliminated the dialup bottleneck with complementary advances in “upstream” capabilities (e.g., more powerful multimedia-capable PCs) and downstream content delivery (e.g., “rich” and interactive media content).

Internet traffic has grown due to four principal factors: (i) an increase in the number of online subscribers, (ii) the amount of time each subscriber spends online, (iii) the growing mix of wireline and wireless distribution options and (iv) the differences and complexity of applications (especially video-based apps) carried online.

However, as Andrew Odlyzko, a professor at the University of Minnesota and former AT&T Labs researcher, argues, “there is no evidence of wireline Internet traffic growing so fast as to require intrusive traffic interference to control it. … traffic growth rates have been declining, to levels slower than the rate of improvement of latest transmission equipment.”

Adding to this critique, three MIT scholars, Steven Bauer, David Clark and William Lehr, recently released an invaluable study on web traffic, “The Evolution of Internet Congestion,” and offer the following warning: “It is certainly possible that network operators, under the guise of managing congestion, may exploit their control over the network pipes in ways that are socially undesirable ….” Their warning should be the starting point for linking alleged congestion to changes in pricing and overall control of the Internet.

Comcast, like AT&T, Verizon or other dominant controller of distribution, has gained ever-increasing control over access by and to its subscribers. In order for a subscriber to reach the Internet, and for content providers to reach the consumer, they have to pass through an ISP's last-mile network, whether over the phone line or airwaves. The ISP is the gatekeeper. This situation gets more troubling when one recalls that in addition to being a last-mile gatekeeper serving residential, business and wholesale customers, Comcast, like the others dominant players in the telecom trust, also operates a powerful backbone network and is now moving in to content.

Comcast is seeking, like other dominant carriers, to be both “vertically” integrated, i.e., control connectivity from the last-mile to the backbone, as well as “horizontally” integrated, i.e., control available content or applications like NBC-U. Its two-dimensional system of integration pushes beyond the iPhone “walled garden” model by which Apple controls the applications available to the consumer. This two-dimensional integration suggests the real, long-term danger that the FCC and Congress refuse to recognize.

The real drama being played out in terms of Internet congestion and changing pricing models needs to be seen as part of a more profound and systemic change in the control of the nation’s telecommunications infrastructure, especially the Internet. Comcast and other conglomerates that make up the telecommunications trust, like the trusts that dominate the oil and gas sector, health care or financial services, are aggressively pushing to control all aspects of the market sector. Unless the debate over congestion and pricing is opened up, refocused to the larger question of industry consolidation, the FCC December 21st proposal will only make the problem worse.

Stay tuned – the worst is yet to come.

Our Cowardly Corporate Media

If there is a silver lining in the action of MSNBC against Keith Olbermann, it is that people will now pay more attention to the political role of corporate media in America.
By Sen. Bernie Sanders, AlterNet
Posted on November 10, 2010

If there is a silver lining in the action of MSNBC against Keith Olbermann, it is that people will now pay more attention to the political role of corporate media in America. While commentators on Fox and right-wing radio have the backing of Rupert Murdoch, a major Republican contributor, and other conservative corporations, progressives understand that their position is extremely vulnerable. Keith Olbermann was suspended by General Electric's MSNBC for a bogus reason. What will prevent the same thing from happening to Rachel Maddow, Ed Schultz and other progressives?

General Electric, NBC's parent, is one of the largest corporations in the world with an anti-labor history of outsourcing jobs and with financial links to military and nuclear power industries. Surely we understand that GE is not going to provide the same backing for MSNBC commentators that Rupert Murdoch provides for his mouthpieces at Fox News.

What has not gotten a lot of attention in the midst of this controversy is that GE's NBC Universal, one of the largest media conglomerates in the country, is in the process of merging with Comcast, the largest cable television provider in America. The new head of that company would be Stephen B. Burke, Comcast's chief operating officer and a "Bush Ranger" who raised at least $200,000 for the 2004 reelection campaign of President George W. Bush.

As Vermont's senator, I intend to do all that I can do to stop this merger. There already is far too much media concentration in this country. We need more diversity. We need more local ownership. We need more viewpoints. 

Net Neutrality: We're Still Waiting

by Timothy Karr - Tuesday, September 21, 2010 by SavetheInternet.com

Exactly a year ago, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski made a major promise to deliver on Net Neutrality. "If we wait too long to preserve a free and open Internet, it will be too late," he told an influential audience in Washington.

We're still waiting.


Instead of doing what's right for Internet users, Genachowski has dodged, dithered and delayed. But it's not too late to turn things around. And Genachowski's legacy as chair of the FCC - either as a champion of openness or as a toothless bureaucrat - rests on what he does now.


The path forward seemed much clearer on September 21, 2009, when Genachowski went to the Brookings Institution to deliver his first major speech as head of the FCC. Genachowski didn't mince words. He declared that without Net Neutrality protections, "We could see the Internet's doors shut to entrepreneurs, the spirit of innovation stifled, a full and free flow of information compromised."


He continued:

"The fact that the internet is evolving rapidly does not mean we can or should abandon the underlying values fostered by an open network or the important goal of setting rules of the road to protect the free and open internet. Saying nothing and doing nothing would impose its own form of unacceptable cost."

"Doing nothing" didn't seem to be an option. He had a majority of the votes at the FCC and support from the president and leaders of Congress.


But what a difference a year can make.


Since his September 2009 Brookings' speech, Genachowski has made little progress to protect Net Neutrality. He started a rule making process last October but hasn't made any rules.


To be fair, things got more complicated when a federal appeals court ruled the FCC lacked the authority to regulate broadband because of some bad decisions during the Bush administration. But instead of seizing the opportunity to restore the agency's ability to protect consumers, Genachowski wavered and retreated.


He eventually came up with a "Third Way" proposal, then immediately started backing away from his own idea, ducking questions from the media regarding his commitment to the proposal.


Then his top deputy tried to broker a disastrous closed-door deal with industry that virtually ignored overwhelming public outcry in favor of a strong Net Neutrality standard. And when Google and Verizon came forward with a vastly unpopular proposal of their own, the chairman sputtered some more.


His only response has been to solicit more public input on questions that have already been asked and answered.


Obama's Waffler


Remember, this is the man whom President Obama put into office with the explicit understanding that his first priority was to protect Net Neutrality. "I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality," Obama pledged in 2007. "As president I'm going to make sure that that is the principle that my FCC commissioners are applying as we move forward."


It's clear from his own statements that the FCC chairman knows what meaningful rules should look like.
The first thing he must do is restore the FCC's authority to protect Internet users by "reclassifying" broadband under the law. Next, the FCC must enact Net Neutrality rules that safeguard the open Internet for all users, no matter how they get online.


Genachowski has been swamped with public support for the move but seems intent on inaction - and doing nothing that would upset the powerful special interests that make up the phone and cable lobby.


Genachowski now has a choice. He can make a decisive and principled move to protect Net Neutrality and be remembered as a hero of the Internet, or he can continue to waffle and be remembered as the FCC head who stood idle as our online freedoms were handed over to the likes of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon.

FCC to Seek Net Neutrality by Regulating Internet Service Providers

FCC to Seek Net Neutrality Using New Legal Framework
by Tony Romm

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski on Thursday announced his agency would seek to regain its lost grip on broadband by applying some of the rules that govern phone companies to Internet providers.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski testifies in Washington, DC, in March 2010. (AFP/Getty Images/File/Chip Somodevilla) One month to the day since a federal court stripped the FCC of that authority, setting back the agency's dual goals of expanding broadband access and instituting tough rules to ensure open Internet, Genachowski took the first steps in restoring what he described as "the shared understanding" that the FCC should protect broadband consumers.

Genachowski's announcement is sure to satisfy net neutrality proponents -- from public-interest groups to companies like Google and Skype, which have long called on the commission to enforce open Internet rules. But the move will likely put Genachowski, the FCC and the Obama administration on a collision course with broadband providers -- like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon -- which have long questioned the FCC's authority to regulate broadband using its internal, rule-making process.

Those companies and others could choose to challenge Genachowski's proposed "third way" forward in court, setting up a protracted legal fight that only Congress could end with new telecommunications legislation. Comcast, however, noted in a statement on Thursday that it is "prepared to work constructively with the Commission" over the next few months.

The best outcome, Comcast added, would be a series of "limited but effective measures to preserve an open Internet and implement critical features of the National Broadband Plan, but does not cast the kind of regulatory cloud that would chill investment and innovation by ISPs."

The FCC's new legal framework addresses a federal court ruling in April that found the FCC only had chief jurisdiction over Title II, or "telecommunications services," and did not even have "ancillary" authority over Title I, or "information services."

"The opinion therefore creates a serious problem that must be solved so that the Commission can implement important, commonsense broadband policies," Genachowski said of the ruling, which favored Comcast, noting the FCC still hopes to carry out much of the proposals it introduced as part of its National Broadband Plan.

But rather than simply taking broadband and re-designating it as a telecommunications service, as some groups thought the FCC might do, Genachowski's plan would use a procedure called "forbearance" to pick and choose aspects of long-standing phone company rules to broadband providers.

Not all of those regulations that govern telecommunications companies would apply to the Web. For example, some of the "common carrier" restrictions on rates, and others that require phone lines to be shared, would not be imposed on the broadband community. But the bulk of rules that allow the FCC to enforce competition and determine how companies can manage their networks would, ultimately, now target Internet providers too.

However, Genachowski's statement on Thursday does not immediately usher that new broadband regulatory framework. Rather, the FCC must embark on public comment periods, hold hearings, consult with stakeholders and vote on the proposals first. That latter element should prove easiest, as the FCC is comprised of three Democrats who have signaled previously they would support reclassification.

"The Comcast decision has created a serious problem," Genachowski said. "I call on all stakeholders to work with us productively to solve the problem the Comcast decision has created in order to ensure a solid legal foundation for protecting consumers, promoting innovation and job creation, and fostering a world-leading broadband infrastructure for all Americans."

~-~=+o)x|0/X\0|x(o+=~-~

FCC will seek to regulate Internet providers
By Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 6, 2010

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission plans to seek clear-cut powers to regulate Internet service providers, redefining the government's role over at least parts of the fast-growing industry.

The proposal, to be announced Thursday, is expected to be opposed by broadband network operators such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, whose Internet access businesses are becoming their main source of revenue as consumers rely on the Web as a primary communication tool.

Internet companies such as Google and Skype and public interest groups are applauding the move because it would allow the FCC to carry out policies to expand broadband access nationwide. The groups also support the commission's efforts to create a regulation that would force broadband service providers to treat all applications equally over high-speed Internet networks, a concept known as net neutrality.

A senior FCC official said Wednesday that Chairman Julius Genachowski's move would be a "third way," between the industry's current state of deregulation and a more comprehensive regulatory approach. Broadband is now defined as an information service with weak FCC oversight. The proposal would put Internet service providers in a category with telephone service, which is more clearly under the agency's authority.

However, the move would stop short of subjecting Internet providers to the full range of requirements imposed on telecom companies, such as oversight of price and billing practices or a rule that would force network providers to share lines with competitors. It also would govern only the companies that own the networks, not the services they transmit.

Last month, a federal court cast doubt on the FCC's authority over the Internet, ruling that the agency overstepped its bounds when it sanctioned Comcast in 2008 for blocking an Internet application that the company said was slowing broadband service.


"The Chairman will seek to restore the status quo as it existed prior to the court decision in order to fulfill the previously stated agenda of extending broadband to all Americans, protecting consumers, ensuring fair competition, and preserving a free and open Internet," the FCC official said in a statement.

Sources said Genachowski appeared to have shifted from late last week, when The Washington Post reported that it looked like he was inclined to keep broadband services deregulated.

Two sources with knowledge of the discussions in the FCC this week said a letter that Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) sent to Genachowski on Wednesday provided political support for the agency to shift Internet lines to a more regulatory framework. The lawmakers said they could support defining broadband as a telecommunications service if the FCC stripped Internet access providers of some of the rules that apply to phone companies.

The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the topic and because Genachowski hasn't officially commented on his decision.

Corporate opposition is sure to be fierce to what some view as a strong move to regulate Internet companies.

"If the goal is maximizing broadband deployment and adoption . . . new regulations such as these will not help," said Bruce Mehlman, co-chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance, an industry group. "This sounds more like a political solution likely to imperil investment than a policy initiative that tackles actual challenges in the marketplace."

Susan Crawford, a law professor at the University of Michigan and a former economic adviser to President Obama, said the move would be a good middle ground for the commission.

"The FCC has clearly thought through all the implications of using its regulatory authority to provide for a level playing field for innovation and job creation in America," she said. "The FCC has reached the right result."

Genachowski's office and general counsel briefed officials Wednesday on his decision. Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, Democratic members of the commission, have said they would support a proposal to reclassify broadband, which would give Genachowski enough votes to move forward on the plan.

The proposal must be opened to public comment and then would need three out of five FCC votes to be approved.

~-~=+o)x|0/X\0|x(o+=~-~

New U.S. Push to Regulate Internet Access
05-06-2010

WASHINGTON—In a move that will stoke a battle over the future of the Internet, the federal government plans to propose regulating broadband lines under decades-old rules designed for traditional phone networks.

The decision, by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski, is likely to trigger a vigorous lobbying battle, arraying big phone and cable companies and their allies on Capitol Hill against Silicon Valley giants and consumer advocates.

Breaking a deadlock within his agency, Mr. Genachowski is expected Thursday to outline his plan for regulating broadband lines. He wants to adopt "net neutrality" rules that require Internet providers like Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc. to treat all traffic equally, and not to slow or block access to websites.

The decision has been eagerly awaited since a federal appeals court ruling last month cast doubt on the FCC's authority over broadband lines, throwing into question Mr. Genachowski's proposal to set new rules for how Internet traffic is managed. The court ruled the FCC had overstepped when it cited Comcast in 2008 for slowing some customers' Internet traffic.

In a nod to such concerns, the FCC said in a statement that Mr. Genachowski wouldn't apply the full brunt of existing phone regulations to Internet lines and that he would set "meaningful boundaries to guard against regulatory overreach."

Some senior Democratic lawmakers provided Mr. Genachowski with political cover for his decision Wednesday, suggesting they wouldn't be opposed to the FCC taking the re-regulation route towards net neutrality protections.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, whose authority over broadband lines has been questioned by a federal court, plans to use regulation on traditional phone networks to establish rules for Internet providers.

"The Commission should consider all viable options," wrote Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, W.V.), chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Henry Waxman (D, Calif.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, in a letter.

At stake is how far the FCC can go to dictate the way Internet providers manage traffic on their multibillion-dollar networks. For the past decade or so, the FCC has maintained a mostly hands-off approach to Internet regulation.

Internet giants like Google Inc., Amazon.com Inc. and eBay Inc., which want to offer more Web video and other high-bandwidth services, have called for stronger action by the FCC to assure free access to websites.

Cable and telecommunications executives have warned that using land-line phone rules to govern their management of Internet traffic would lead them to cut billions of capital expenditure for their networks, slash jobs and go to court to fight the rules.

Consumer groups hailed the decision Wednesday, an abrupt change from recent days, when they'd bombarded the FCC chairman with emails and phone calls imploring him to fight phone and cable companies lobbyists.

"On the surface it looks like a win for Internet companies," said Rebecca Arbogast, an analyst with Stifel Nicolaus. "A lot will depend on the details of how this gets implemented."

Mr. Genachowski's proposal will have to go through a modified inquiry and rule-making process that will likely take months of public comment. But Ms. Arbogast said the rule is likely to be passed since it has the support of the two other Democratic commissioners.

President Barack Obama vowed during his campaign to support regulation to promote so-called net neutrality, and received significant campaign contributions from Silicon Valley. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School buddy of the president, proposed new net neutrality rules as his first major action as FCC chairman.

Telecom executives say privately that limits on their ability to change pricing would make it harder to convince shareholders that the returns from spending billions of dollars on improving a network are worth the cost.

Carriers fear further regulation could handcuff their ability to cope with the growing demand put on their networks by the explosion in Internet and wireless data traffic. In particular, they worry that the FCC will require them to share their networks with rivals at government-regulated rates.

Mike McCurry, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton and co-chair of the Arts + Labs Coalition, an industry group representing technology companies, telecom companies and content providers, said the FCC needs to assert some authority to back up the general net neutrality principles it outlined in 2005.

"The question is how heavy a hand will the regulatory touch be," he said. "We don't know yet, so the devil is in the details. The network operators have to be able to treat some traffic on the Internet different than other traffic—most people agree that web video is different than an email to grandma. You have to discriminate in some fashion."

UBS analyst John Hodulik said the cable companies and carriers were likely to fight this in court "for years" and could accelerate their plans to wind down investment in their broadband networks.

"You could have regulators involved in every facet of providing Internet over time. How wholesale and prices are set, how networks are interconnected and requirements that they lease out portions of their network," he said.

Giving FCC authority to set policy on net neutrality

Congress should give the FCC specific authority over broadband to keep traffic flowing freely.

5:01 PM PDT, April 8, 2010

A federal appeals court reined in the Federal Communications Commission this week, ruling that it overstepped its authority when it penalized Comcast for surreptitiously disabling a popular technology that let people share files online. But the ruling did not quell the commission's interest in regulating the way Internet service providers such as Comcast manage their networks. Instead, it set up a potential fight over whether the commission's regulatory authority should be expanded, either by Congress or the commission itself. We think the best course is for lawmakers to give the FCC clear but limited power to preserve the openness that has made the Internet not just a hotbed for innovation but also the most important communications medium of our time.

At issue is "net neutrality," which is the idea that companies selling high-speed Internet connections should treat all legal websites and online offerings equally. These companies take an essentially neutral approach today, discriminating only against malicious content and spam. But with their customers sending and receiving increasing amounts of data, Internet service providers warn that they won't be able to keep pace with the demand for bandwidth unless they can generate more revenue -- possibly by letting online companies pay extra to make their sites and services more accessible than their competitors' (the so-called Internet "fast lane"). Such a shift could help well-financed companies with established audiences cement their advantage over smaller and newer contenders.

Both sides of the neutrality debate agree that the free and open nature of the Internet is crucial to spurring innovation. What divides them are the questions of whether the government should try to protect those qualities and whether the possibility of a fast lane constitutes a threat or an upgrade. We'd prefer to rely on the market, but that would require more competition among broadband service providers. Today, most homes have at best two options for high-speed service: a cable modem from the local cable TV operator or a DSL connection from the local phone company. Wireless companies are emerging as a third option in some areas, but they may never be able to match the capacity of wired connections.

Because consumers have few real alternatives, broadband providers could abuse their position as gatekeepers to steer traffic to affiliated websites or away from competitors, and to manage congestion in a way that handicaps rival phone and video services. There's little evidence that they're doing such things; the FCC has taken action against only two companies for interfering with their customers' activities online. One was Madison River Communications, a North Carolina-based telephone and DSL provider accused in 2005 of blocking customers’ access to an Internet phone service. The other was Comcast, which secretly prevented customers from using BitTorrent software to share files in 2008. But the decision Tuesday by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals called into question not just the Comcast ruling but the FCC's power to stop any Internet provider from interfering with its customers' access to the websites and services of their choice, no matter how blatantly.

The FCC gave up much of its authority over Internet providers as broadband services proliferated. Back in the dial-up modem days, it classified Internet access as a communications service subject to extensive federal regulation, similar to long-distance phone plans. But in 2002 and 2005, it reclassified cable modems and DSL connections as information services -- a deregulatory move that left the commission with little clear rule-making power over them. Instead, the FCC called on broadband providers to grant their customers four freedoms online: to access any legal content, run any application, use any compatible device and be fully informed about their service plans.

Those principles were simply declared, not adopted as rules, which contributed to the FCC's problem before the D.C. Circuit. Last year the commission's new chairman, Julius Genachowski, launched a formal process to adopt the four principles as rules, along with two additional ones: broadband providers should not discriminate against any legal sites or applications, nor should they conceal how they manage traffic on their networks. That's a better approach, but the D.C. Circuit's ruling suggests that information services simply cannot be regulated that way.

One option is for the FCC to reverse its previous decisions and classify broadband as a communications service. It wouldn't be far-fetched -- the Internet is a more sophisticated and powerful communications medium than traditional telephony. In fact, phone service is just one of many communications applications the Internet supports. Considering how much has changed since Congress overhauled telecommunications law in 1996, however, it would be better to have lawmakers give the FCC specific powers to safeguard the Net than to have the commission stuff broadband providers into the same regulatory category as last century's Bell system.

Congress has dodged this issue for several years, with at least three net neutrality bills foundering in House or Senate committees since 2006. Not only is the issue complex, but there's no consensus even within the usual political and ideological alliances. For example, some social conservatives support neutrality rules on free-speech grounds, while fiscal conservatives oppose them as a regulatory intrusion. The major Hollywood studios fear the rules might impede their efforts to fight piracy, but the Independent Film & Television Alliance favors them as a way to protect their members' access to viewers. Nevertheless, this week's ruling leaves Congress little choice. At the very least, it should give the FCC the power to stop the kinds of abuses that Madison River and Comcast engaged in. Otherwise, the commission may well give itself the power to do even more.

AFter Comcast Ruling, FCC to Tweak Nat'l. Broadband Plan

FCC May Tweak Broadband Plan After Comcast Ruling
ARTICLE DATE: 04.09.10
By Chloe Albanesius

Despite a recent ruling that said the Federal Communications Commission did not have the right to interfere in Comcast's network management issues, the agency is pushing ahead with its national broadband plan, though there might be some tweaks.

"Does the FCC still have a mission in the Internet area? Absolutely," Austin Schlick, general counsel for the FCC, wrote in a blog post. "The Court did not adopt the view that the Commission lacks authority to protect the openness of the Internet."

The court did, however, say that the FCC lacked the authority to hand down a 2008 enforcement action against Comcast. The commission, under former chairman Kevin Martin, found that Comcast used unreasonable network management when it blocked access to P2P sites like BitTorrent and ordered the company to be more transparent about its policies. Comcast agreed to do that, but appealed the decision anyway because, it argued, the FCC did not have the right to issue orders on the issue.

Why? Well, the FCC based its decision on its Internet Policy Principles, a set of guidelines the agency developed internally several years ago regarding broadband Internet service. But because they are simply policies developed internally by the FCC and not actual rules that went through a formal, open rulemaking process, Comcast argued that they are invalid, as is the enforcement action.

This week, an appeals court agreed, and invalidated the FCC's actions.

In the wake of this decision, many wondered what this meant for the FCC's much-publicized broadband plan, as well as their ongoing rulemaking on net neutrality. If the FCC has on authority to handle network management issues, do they have the authority to handle broadband or net neutrality issues?

Yes, according to the FCC. Congress ordered the commission to develop the national broadband plan, so the FCC has been granted authority to address that issue, Schlick said.

"The Comcast/BitTorrent opinion has no effect at all on most of the plan," Schlick wrote. "Many of the recommendations for the FCC itself involve matters over which the commission has an 'express statutory delegation of authority.' These include critical projects such as making spectrum available for broadband uses, improving the efficiency of wireless systems, bolstering the use of broadband in schools, improving coordination with Native American governments to promote broadband, collecting better broadband data, unleashing competition and innovation in smart video devices, and developing common standards for public safety networks."

Those thoughts were echoed by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski.

"The court decision earlier this week does not change our broadband policy goals, or the ultimate authority of the FCC to act to achieve those goals," Genachowski said. "The court did not question the FCC's goals; it merely invalidated one technical, legal mechanism for broadband policy chosen by prior commissions."

Schlick did acknowledge, however, that the court's decision "may affect a significant number of important plan recommendations."

That includes: recommendations aimed at accelerating broadband access and adoption in rural America; connecting low-income Americans, Native American communities, and Americans with disabilities; supporting robust use of broadband by small businesses to drive productivity, growth and ongoing innovation; lowering barriers that hinder broadband deployment; strengthening public safety communications; cyber security; consumer protection, including transparency and disclosure; and consumer privacy.

"The commission must have a sound legal basis for implementing each of these recommendations," Schlick said. "We are assessing the implications of [the] decision for each one, to ensure that the commission has adequate authority to execute the mission laid out in the plan."

In the meantime, the FCC is moving forward on some aspects of the plan. One section called for Internet service providers to be more transparent about how well their broadband service actually works. The FCC has already released a broadband testing tool on broadband.gov for consumers to test their Internet speeds at home, but now the commission is now partnering with SamKnows Limited for a more in-depth look.

SamKnows will measure broadband performance in about 10,000 homes to "scientifically understand broadband performance across America," the FCC said.

"In a couple of weeks, we will be asking for consumers from across the country to voluntarily install hardware in their homes (on an opt-in basis) that is capable of measuring broadband performance," FCC economic advisor Dave Vorhaus, wrote in a separate blog post. "The measurements will give us results across a broad swath of providers, service tiers and geographic areas."

More details about volunteering will be posted in the next several weeks, he said, and the FCC will also release a public notice with details about SamKnows' technical approach and methodology.

In addition, the FCC this week released broadband-related goals it wishes to accomplish this year. The national broadband plan includes recommendations that need to be carried out over the next 10 years, but this year, the FCC will focus on mobile broadband, broadband for national purposes like healthcare and education, competition, and the public safety network.

On net neutrality, meanwhile, the FCC has again extended the public comment period – this time from April 8 to April 26. The rulemaking would essentially require ISPs to use reasonable network management and not block specific applications. It would also make those Internet Policy Principles actual FCC rules, a move that might actually give the commission the authority the court said it currently lacks.

Comcast has not said much beyond its initial statement, which said the company was "gratified" by the court's decision and pursued the issue to "clear our name and reputation."

More on Net Neutrality and the Corporate Muscle Defeating It

What If AT&T Prevented You from Reading This Article?
April 8, 2010

Editor's Note: The following is the text of a powerful email sent by activist group Color of Change to its members, urging direct action against the telecoms' onslaught on Net Neutrality.

The Internet has made amazing things possible, like freeing the Jena 6, electing President Obama, even creating ColorOfChange. None of it could have happened without an "open" Internet: one where Internet service providers are not allowed to interfere with what is seen and by whom.

Now, Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon — the most powerful broadband providers — are trying to fundamentally change the way the Internet works. They're seeking to make even bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers over what you can see and do online. If they succeed, the Internet would be more like radio and television: a few major corporations would control which voices are heard most easily, and it would be much harder for grassroots groups, individuals, and small businesses to compete with large corporations and well-funded special interests.

The FCC wants to do the right thing and keep the Internet open, but the big providers have been attacking their efforts, with help from Black leaders who have financial ties to the industry. And a court ruling yesterday just made the FCC's job even tougher1. If the FCC is to preserve an open Internet, they will have to boldly assert their authority and press even harder. It's why they need to hear directly from everyday people, especially from Black folks, about the importance of an open Internet, now.

Can you join us in sending a message to the Federal Communications Commission supporting their effort to preserve an open Internet? It takes only a moment.

The FCC is working to create rules that would protect "net neutrality," the principle that protects an open and free Internet and which has guided the Internet's operation since it began. It guarantees that information you put online is treated the same as anyone else's information in terms of its basic ability to travel across the Internet. Your own personal website or blog can compete on equal footing with the biggest companies. It's the reason the Internet is so diverse — and so powerful. Anyone with a good idea can find their audience online, whether or not there's money to promote the idea or money to be made from it.

For Black folks, this is crucial. For the first time in history we can communicate with a global audience — for entertainment, education, or political organizing — without prohibitive costs, or mediation by gatekeepers in government or industry. That’s how ColorOfChange became successful: because of the low cost of starting up online, we could start small and grow without spending a lot of money. The strength of our ideas, not the size of our budget, determined our success. In television, radio and print, this can't happen, because access is determined by big media corporations seeking to turn a profit.

AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon are spending millions of dollars lobbying to create a new system where they can charge large fees to speed up some data while leaving those who can’t afford to pay in the slow lane.2 Such a system could end the Internet as we know it — giving wealthier voices on the Internet a much bigger megaphone than poorer voices, and stunting the Internet's amazing equalizing potential.

Buying the support of Black organizations?

President Obama strongly supports net neutrality, and so do most members of the FCC. With so much at stake for Black communities, you would expect Black leaders and civic organizations to line up in support of an open Internet.

But instead, a group of Black civic organizations is challenging the adoption of net neutrality rules. Some of the groups are nothing more than front groups for the phone and cable companies. Others, however, are major civil rights groups — and all of them have significant financial ties to the nation’s biggest Internet service providers.

For example, AT&T donated half a million dollars last year to the NAACP and led a drive to raise $5 million more,3 and boasts of donating nearly $3 million over the last ten years to a number of Black-led organizations.4 Verizon, meanwhile, recently gave The National Urban League and the National Council of La Raza a $2.2 million grant.5 Comcast is one of the National Urban League’s “national partners” (Comcast Executive Vice President David Cohen now sits on the NUL’s Board of Trustees),6 and the NUL’s 2008 annual report notes that Comcast donated over $1 million that year.7 Many of these groups have now filed letters with the FCC opposing or cautioning against net neutrality,8,9,10,11 and the Internet service providers are using the groups' support to promote their agenda in Washington.12,13

The main argument put forth by these groups is that net neutrality rules could limit minority access to the Internet and widen the digital divide. They say that unless we allow Internet service providers to make bigger profits by acting as gatekeepers online, they won’t expand Internet access in under-served communities. In other words, if Comcast — whose broadband Internet business was recently earning 80 percent profit margins 14 — can increase its profits under a system without net neutrality, then it will all of a sudden invest in expanding Internet access in our communities.

This argument has been debunked15, 16 — it doesn’t make any sense from a business or economic perspective, and it doesn’t reflect history. Expanding access to high speed Internet is an extremely important goal, and we are fully in support of it. But allowing the phone and cable companies to make more money by acting as toll-takers on the Internet has nothing to do with reaching that goal. Businesses invest where they can maximize their profits, period. Internet service providers are already making huge profits,17 and if they believed that investing in low-income communities made good business sense, they would already be doing it. The idea that making even more money is suddenly going to make them care about our communities is ridiculous.

When we’ve asked civil rights groups to back up their arguments against net neutrality, not a single one has been able to explain how they make any sense, without appealing to discredited, industry-funded studies.18 And no one can offer any evidence for the claim that protecting net neutrality will hurt efforts to expand Internet access.

Some of these civil rights groups are quick to say that they don’t really oppose net neutrality, they only intend to raise questions or concerns they deem important. But the “concerns” raised by these groups sound so similar to talking points from the Internet service providers that both the FCC and the news media19 have interpreted them as against net neutrality. And these organizations have done little or nothing to clarify the record.

We don't enjoy being in opposition to organizations like the NAACP, the Urban League, and the National Council of La Raza, organizations that have a history of doing great work that benefits our communities. But in this case, we don't have a choice. The digital freedoms that are at stake are a 21st century civil rights issue.

We’ve privately contacted each of the above organizations, and we’ve publicly called for them to explain their positions, twice.20,21 In each case, we've gotten nowhere.*

The FCC wants to do the right thing and implement net neutrality rules. FCC commissioners know, as we do, that the anti-net neutrality arguments coming from civil rights groups are bogus. But they don't want to appear to be on the wrong side of Black interests.22

We need to demonstrate that there's support among Black folks and our allies for protecting an open Internet. Please join us in telling the FCC that we support net neutrality.

US Appeals Court Rules Against FCC on 'Net Neutrality'

Well, here's some SUCK in the form of yet more favor given to corporations over individuals by the stinking courts...and you know what will happen when it reaches the SCOTUS: they'll concur with the appeals court and turn the internet into nothing but a shopping mall.

Darknet, folks. Or Darkweb or invisible web. Do a search and stay up-to-date with it. There will come a day when it will be preferred to the regular 'world wide web' for communications and such by those of us who oppose corporate governance.

###

US Appeals Court Rules Against FCC on 'Net Neutrality'
by Joelle Tessler

WASHINGTON - A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the Federal Communications Commission lacks the authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company. It had challenged the FCC's authority to impose so-called "net neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.

The ruling also marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to officially set net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski argues that such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some online content and services over others.

The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.

The court case centered on Comcast's challenge of a 2008 FCC order banning the company from blocking its broadband subscribers from using an online file-sharing technology known as BitTorrent. The commission, at the time headed by Republican Kevin Martin, based its order on a set of net-neutrality principles it adopted in 2005 to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers. Those principles have guided the FCC's enforcement of communications laws on a case-by-case basis, and now Genachowski is trying to formalize those rules.