Battle lines being drawn over future of the Internet

This is your future

Prepare for drastic Internet changes – or Act Now

On October 22 of this year the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took the first step toward creating formal net neutrality rules, despite a huge lobbying effort from opposing groups. Since mid-2005, the FCC has said it will enforce four broadband policy principles, saying consumers have a right to access the legal Internet content of their choice, and they are entitled to run Web applications and services of their choice. While long an underlying principle behind the World Wide Web, the FCC has never made formal net neutrality rules.

On the FCC announcement, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski said, “the rules are necessary to protect innovation on the Internet and preserve the openness that has allowed the Internet to blossom. The problem is not merely that we’ve seen some significant situations where broadband providers have degraded the data streams of popular lawful services and blocked consumer access to lawful applications,” he said. “The heart of the problem is that … we face the dangerous combination of an uncertain legal framework with ongoing as well as emerging challenges to a free and open Internet. Given the potentially huge consequences of having the open Internet diminished through inaction, the time is now to move forward with consideration of fair and reasonable rules of the road.”

According to Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a digital rights advocacy group, “The Internet was created and grew up under strict nondiscrimination rules. Those same ideas are as valuable today as they were 10 years ago. Having rules in place will bring a degree of certainty that will help both carriers and consumers alike. Carriers will know what is allowed and what is not; consumers will be relieved to know they will be able to have access to any content and service on a nondiscriminatory basis.”

Meanwhile, from our old friends on the hill

In a seemingly separate event, one day later on October 23, 2009, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) introduced a bill, the so-called Internet Freedom Act, seeking to do the opposite of what its name implies, by ensuring that broadband and wireless providers can discriminate and throttle certain traffic while giving preferential treatment to other traffic. Basically, those in power and/or those who pay more will have access to more bandwidth.

Where is all this Orwellian style double-speak coming from? Congress introduces a bill that would effectively kill any notion of Net Neutrality and give the final decision making power over to the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, as to who gets priority service and who doesn’t. The name of this bill? The Internet Freedom Act!

George Orwell would be proud of the way in which such phrases as “Public Safety and Homeland Security” have come to mean unlawful search and seizure and an end to writ of habeas corpus; “Ignorance is Strength” describes the hog-wash that passes for network, as well as cable television, and “Freedom,” once a sacred word in this country is left in the hands of  the BIG Telecoms to administer and arbitrate.

According to the text of the McCain bill, the FCC “shall not propose, promulgate, or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services.”

Now wait just a damn minute here; isn’t that specifically what the FCC is chartered to do? (See mission statement below) Since when did our Congress go from being the maker of laws to the con-founder of the existing structures that were put in place (by Congress) to regulate certain industries in the first place? Can we all spell “Special Interest,” kiddies?

An excerpt from the mission statement of the FCC:

As specified in section one of the Communications Act (of 1934) as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (amendment to 47 U.S.C. §151) it is the FCC’s mission to “make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”[sic] The Act furthermore provides that the FCC was created “for the purpose of the national defense” and “for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications…”

Consistent with the objectives of the Act as well as the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the FCC has identified six goals in its 2006-2011 Strategic Plan. Those are:

* Broadband: “All Americans should have affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services. Regulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition, investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentives to develop and offer such products and services...”

The McCain “Internet Freedom Act” see’s the Internet in a whole different light, setting the stage for the same sort of Big money, Big Business, and Big government control we’ve come to expect from radio, television and the print media.

Why McCain?

Another interesting question; what do John McCain and the Internet have in common, in the first place? During last year’s Presidential campaign McCain freely admitted to having little or no knowledge, or interest in modern technologies like email or the Internet. On the other hand, John saw fit to accept huge contributions from large Internet service providers, such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, to namne a few, and now, as the bill comes due on these “donations,” Mr. McCain opts to sponsor a bill that would effectively strip the Internet of its underlying democratic underpinnings and leave the decisions on who gets the bandwidth up to the telecoms.

According to a report from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Responsive Politics, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) is the top recipient of campaign contributions from large Internet service providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Over the past two years, McCain has taken in a total of $894,379 (much of that money going to support his failed 2008 bid for the presidency), more than twice the amount taken by the next-largest beneficiary, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. ($341,089).

This article is in no way meant as  a reproach to Mr. McCain, who’s record as a soldier and senator speak for themselves, however one is given pause as to the motivation of anyone that would opt to support, let alone sponsor a bill so diametrically opposed to the free dissemination of information to the people of this country, and indeed the world.

If you want a better idea of how all this will work just take a look at the current state of cable TV and how it is packaged for the providers’ benefit with very little choice by consumers as to what programming they choose to pay for. 200 channels for $49.95 per month may seem like a good deal to some, but what if you only want three of those channels. Under current regulations, the only way to get the 3 stations one wants is to pay for the other 197 that one has no interest in. The proposed legislation sets the stage for the same sort of pro big-business shenanigans that we have all come to expect from the kids of Ma Bell.

Make no mistake here, it is the exact same players we are discussing. Those who having successfully lobbied for the current regulations affecting cable providers and are now taking some of those profits and lobbying for the same sweet deal for Internet services.

A much deeper issue involved in the proposed legislation is that it makes possible the deliberate expansion of bandwidth to those who can afford to pay a “premium” for it,  that bandwidth being drawn from those either not able to pay, or even worse, those not spouting the same message as the established big-dollar media moguls, who for years now have seen fit to publish little more than what is handed them by the government run and lobbyist supported propaganda apparatus itself.

But how can we be sure?

Just in case there are any doubts as to how the telecoms will use this new found freedom that they are paying so well for, take the case of Comcast who filed a federal lawsuit challenging the FCC’s authority to enforce these principles after the agency ruled last August that Comcast had to stop slowing peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic in the name of network management.

Interestingly,  Comcast’s federal suit, denying the authority of the FCC to regulate, let alone punish in these matters comes on the heels of their asking for and receiving a stay of an earlier suit filed in the state of California claiming the exact opposite.

In its motion, Comcast argued that regulation is “unnecessary and unwarranted,” but also specifically said the FCC has authority over the matter. “Any inquiry into whether Comcast’s P2P management is unlawful falls squarely within the FCC’s subject matter jurisdiction,” the company stated in its brief.

“Comcast is wrong,” says Free Press attorney Marvin Ammori. “Comcast is not above the law. In fact, the Commission has asserted eight different bases for its authority, and every one of these asserted bases independently confers Title I authority.”

Now’s the time

Every small business owner (or employee, or customer – everyone who would like to see the Internet remain an open and democratic network,) who wants to do business online without paying a “quality of service tax” or some other electronic blackmail charge, should let their representative in Congress know that they are in favor of Net Neutrality in principle, and that it is a basic  protection for small business, as well as for the free dissemination of information among an informed citizenry.

And while you’re at it, maybe put in a word or two about truth in advertising, or calling a spade a spade, or however you might want to phrase it. There’s been entirely too much double-speak coming from the “swamp” lately, and I for one would rather hear nothing than this incessant mumble-jumbo that passes for news. Gee-whiz, if they had just called it the “Internet Slavery Act of 2009″ I might have gone right past and not given it a second thought.

On a lighter note . . .

… at times I feel that I get just a glimpse of the frustrations the founders of this great nation experienced at the audacity of a ruling class that seems to find no low too low to sink to.

Jon Stewart’s Daily Show from 10/26/2009 takes a different tack on the issue. It’s a whole lot funnier than the situation warrants perhaps, but it puts another perspective on the whole thing that’s thought provoking, at the very least.

As Stewart points out, there’s a hidden motive behind everyone who promotes net neutrality. And that is, naturally, advancing a radical socialist agenda by controlling the Internet.

Set the telecoms free!

Surely we can trust them!