The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time

[Kid Cid]

Before you go casting dispersions on the author of this article or the source (Senator Al Franken and The Huffington Post respectively) you should be aware that this is not a partisan issue and is one that potentially affects each of us in a very negative manner. Namely, the issue is Net Neutrality and the movement by big corporations to dictate what information is available to you on the Net.

 

The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time

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.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

We should have known it was only a matter of time before the big companies started to exert control over internet access. For many of us, especially in smaller towns, there's not a whole lot of options so it becomes sort of a take it or leave it situation. Something needs to be done.

[Savage Beatings]

The only possible way that we can all be free is to allow the government to control everything.

[Grimm74]

"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."

 

 

Then switch to the phone company or Directv Internet? Or if you are on Sprint switch to AT&T or Verizon. If they all start conspiring to shut down the Obama campaign or Netflix throw the antitrust book at them.

 

Are there cases of abuse by Internet providers so far? I am not really big on laws that deal with a lot of WHAT IF's and could's instead of dealing with real abuses.

 

Haven't they tried this in other ways before and in the end the courts reversed it?

 

I know for a fact if Verizon stopped allowing me to use Google maps I would switch providers in a heartbeat. I am not so sure they would be willing to lose my $390 a month(business) for that $9.95 but lets not let individuals decide. Why not just enact some laws and rules for something that is not an issue yet that may have some real unknown detrimental unintended consequences.

[Clubfoothead]

The only possible way that we can all be free is to allow the government to control everything.

 

That's certainly preferrable to big business doing it.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I know for a fact if Verizon stopped allowing me to use Google maps I would switch providers in a heartbeat.

 

 

You would? What if the provider you were thinking of switching to didn't allow access to Yahoo or espn's website (or the huddle )?

What if all the major websites started selling their access rights to the internet providers and you had to look at an internet access providers website line-up when making your decision on which one to go with?

[Savage Beatings]

That's certainly preferrable to big business doing it.

 

Um, no it's not. Big business is still subject to market forces. Government is not. Big business does not have to power to place you in prison if you don't comply. Government is the last entity that you want to give more control to unless absolutely necessary. Why don't you people get it?

[Grimm74]

You would? What if the provider you were thinking of switching to didn't allow access to Yahoo or espn's website (or the huddle )?

What if all the major websites started selling their access rights to the internet providers and you had to look at an internet access providers website line-up when making your decision on which one to go with?

 

I love the WHAT IF's. Please control me b/c What if....It could....it might!!!!! save me oh government form that big bad business. Doesn't the television industry do this right now? The biggest wallet gets the commercial??????

 

I envision I would go with the company that gives me the best value. I know your scared but I promise companies will fight to the death for my business b/c without subscribers espn, yahoo, netflix and etc have no reason to hand mountains of cash to this fictitious content selling of Internet access business that has been established.

 

I understand that new laws and regulation are the backbone and big business for politicians.

[SayItAintSoJoe]

I love the WHAT IF's. Please control me b/c What if....It could....it might!!!!! save me oh government form that big bad business. Doesn't the television industry do this right now? The biggest wallet gets the commercial??????

 

I envision I would go with the company that gives me the best value. I know your scared but I promise companies will fight to the death for my business b/c without subscribers espn, yahoo, netflix and etc have no reason to hand mountains of cash to this fictitious content selling of Internet access business that has been established.

 

I understand that new laws and regulation are the backbone and big business for politicians.

 

 

I want them to fight to the death for my business when it comes to getting me access to the internet. But once I'm there I want to go where I want, whenever I want, for as long as I want.

 

Only time will tell. I guess we'll have to revisit this issue here in 3 to 5 years. That is assuming we can both get to this site

Edited December 21, 2010 by SayItAintSoJoe

[Grimm74]

I want them to fight to the death for my business when it comes to getting me access to the internet. But once I'm there I want to go where I want, whenever I want, for as long as I want.

 

Only time will tell. I guess we'll have to revisit this issue here in 3 to 5 years. That is assuming we can both get to this site

 

We the new rules we definetly will be able to access thehuddle. It will just cost us more.

[Chief Dick]

If companies like Verizon and Comcast started limiting apps and content, wouldn't this open up an opportunity to create a new company that gave customers free reign?

 

Introducing:

 

DickCast - Your New Provider for Internet Access.

[Square]

Steve Wozniak to the FCC: Keep the Internet Free

 

[cliaz]

If an entity is providing you service, it is their right to determine what speed you access the internet at based on what you pay. And as far as what applications/websites filter through, well I have not as of yet made up my mind on that portion. I'm torn because I see no indication of limiting content based on what service provider you use (1st hand knowledge). But for the sake of argument, If you own HBO, they only advertise shows and services that HBO provides or one of it's sister companies/services. Same thing. If you have comcast and they want to filter out competitors, it is their right. That being said, there should be an option with a service provider that allows you to opt in to other items normally filtered out.

 

Communication is not free but the internet is a totally different ball of wax. As I stated at the top of my reply, I am still on the fence about it. Remember, I work for a uber telecommunications corporation and see the other side of this issue from the internal workings of a company and it isn't at all what is being presented in the media.

[Yukon Cornelius]

That's certainly preferrable to big business doing it.

no no big business is always looking out for the common man even if it eats into their profits.

[DMD]

Obviously I am all for net neutrality. I would point out too that the biggest business of them all is the US Government and if you are more comfortable with the government taking a bigger hand in what happens on the internet then you must have been one of the rare people who are both happy with the current administration and the previous adminstration. All those hands need to keep out of this pie - government and big business. Net neutrality has been the basis for all the success of the internet and has changed the world. The internet does not need to be more regulated and it does not need to be controlled by any entity. There would be no Huddle if ESPN could have flexed their muscle and made accessing our site hard or impossible to do in the early days and ESPN like any corporation would have gladly done just that if they could.

 

There is nothing so good that both commercial interests and political agendas won't try to mess it up.

[billay]

Obviously I am all for net neutrality. I would point out too that the biggest business of them all is the US Government and if you are more comfortable with the government taking a bigger hand in what happens on the internet then you must have been one of the rare people who are both happy with the current administration and the previous adminstration. All those hands need to keep out of this pie - government and big business.

You do realize that without "the big hand of the government" there would be no internet at all. right?

[i_am_the_swammi]

Obviously I am all for net neutrality. I would point out too that the biggest business of them all is the US Government and if you are more comfortable with the government taking a bigger hand in what happens on the internet then you must have been one of the rare people who are both happy with the current administration and the previous adminstration.

 

I'm confused.

 

On one hand you mock the government "taking a bigger hand in what happens on the internet, yet on the other you would be out of business if big companies were allowed to control the internet.

 

The only way big companies won't control it is if the government steps in and deems it unlawful. In this case, you need the government to play big brother..or else little brother goes away.

[DMD]

You do realize that without "the big hand of the government" there would be no internet at all. right?

 

Absolutely. And that is exactly the sort of thing that a government should do.

 

My problem is when they cannot leave well enough alone and leave a great thing alone. The internet should not be intertwined with business interests that are making campaign contributions, or political agendas like the Kyl bill which sought to eliminate fantasy football because it considered it internet gambling or the attempt by the NFLPA and MLB to deny internet sites the use of statistics.

 

The government should act in such a way to benefit all and that is totally what the internet has done. I guess I just do not draw the same lines as others because I see less difference between "big business" and "big government". I think they prefer to go hand in hand and that is what screws it for the common man.

 

Yes, the government should step in and ensure neutrality. They should use their hand to ensure that it remains as it is.

 

One of the troubling parts of the article to me was :

 

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.

 

So that the government works in concert with big business and is not looking to maintain an environment that best benefits the average person.

[SEC=UGA]

I'm confused.

 

On one hand you mock the government "taking a bigger hand in what happens on the internet, yet on the other you would be out of business if big companies were allowed to control the internet.

 

The only way big companies won't control it is if the government steps in and deems it unlawful. In this case, you need the government to play big brother..or else little brother goes away.

 

You nor I would want the Conservative Republicans regulating what is allowed on the innernets. I would lose my porn, you would lose access to the Huffington Post and all the other left wing rags that are out there. Once government gets its claws into something it can be manipulated to suit the ideology of those in power.

 

For example, in Turkey, I was quite surprised when I tried to read an article on CNN's Political page... "This page is blocked due to an order from the..." Blew me away.

[Ursa Majoris]

If an entity is providing you service, it is their right to determine what speed you access the internet at based on what you pay. And as far as what applications/websites filter through, well I have not as of yet made up my mind on that portion. I'm torn because I see no indication of limiting content based on what service provider you use (1st hand knowledge). But for the sake of argument, If you own HBO, they only advertise shows and services that HBO provides or one of it's sister companies/services. Same thing. If you have comcast and they want to filter out competitors, it is their right. That being said, there should be an option with a service provider that allows you to opt in to other items normally filtered out.

 

Communication is not free but the internet is a totally different ball of wax. As I stated at the top of my reply, I am still on the fence about it. Remember, I work for a uber telecommunications corporation and see the other side of this issue from the internal workings of a company and it isn't at all what is being presented in the media.

I'll come back to this when I have more time. The Comcast filter comment is completely wrong.

[Perchoutofwater]

I can see it both ways. I'd prefer that everyone have the same voice and same options, but at the same time I realize as with anything bandwidth is a finite resource. When demand is high then the cost of that resource goes up. If you have higher demands you should have to pay higher prices. Ideally these higher prices would eventually result in additional capital that will be spent on expanding the infrastructure eventually bringing the cost down for all. Am I wrong in this?

[Pope Flick]

I can see it both ways. I'd prefer that everyone have the same voice and same options, but at the same time I realize as with anything bandwidth is a finite resource. When demand is high then the cost of that resource goes up. If you have higher demands you should have to pay higher prices. Ideally these higher prices would eventually result in additional capital that will be spent on expanding the infrastructure eventually bringing the cost down for all. Am I wrong in this?

 

 

I haven't read through the article, but one thing missing from this thread is the future of it all: the internet is going mobile-device oriented in a major way. That changes the equation as cliaz put forth because this thing is no longer dependent on a hard infrastructure they have built and own, (be it cable, fiber what have you) but it is now becoming more and more dependent on the wireless spectrum which is a resource the government has owned since the original FCC Charter of 1933 or thereabouts (check with ursa).

 

As this progresses, the whole ball of wax changes and net neutrality as conceived should become more of a fait accompli, but whether or not it will in practice will remain to be seen. If comcast gets licensed a chunk of the airwaves to shoot wireless internet into everyone's home they do NOT get to cherry pick what goes up because wireless is, believe it or not, a very public resource. This was last debated I believe when the VHF and UHF signals were auctioned off a few years back.

[redrumjuice]

If President Obama wants his executive branch to resemble the opaque, power-hungry political machinations in Chicago, he seems to be succeeding in the area of Internet regulation. Last April, a federal court told the Federal Communications Commission that it has no business regulating the Internet. Unfortunately, judicial rejection of the commission's first swing at the "net neutrality" ball -- the idea the FCC must regulate the Internet to insure everybody has equal access -- didn't deter Obama's FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, from taking another whack. He's bringing a new set of proposed net neutrality regulations to the five-member panel Tuesday. Unfortunately, nobody knows any details of the new proposal because Genachowski has kept them secret until the last possible minute even as he rushed them forward for a vote. How ironic that the Internet, the great and empowering liberator of information that "wants to be free," is being chopped up behind closed doors by an unelected panel. Note, too, that this is being considered by the FCC on the winter solstice, the darkest day of the year.

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/edit...t#ixzz18m0OYyMX

[billay]

Last April, a federal court told the Federal Communications Commission that it has no business regulating the Internet.

That's not what the court said.

 

 

In this case we must decide whether the Federal Communications Commission has authority to regulate an Internet service provider's network management practices. Acknowledging that it has no express statutory authority over such practices, the Commission relies on section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, which authorizes the Commission to "perform any and all acts, make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this chapter, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions." The Commission may exercise this "ancillary" authority only if it demonstrates that its action—here barring Comcast from interfering with its customers' use of peer-to-peer networking applications—is "reasonably ancillary to the ... effective performance of its statutorily mandated responsibilities." The Commission has failed to make that showing. It relies principally on several Congressional statements of policy, but under Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit case law statements of policy, by themselves, do not create "statutorily mandated responsibilities." The Commission also relies on various provisions of the Communications Act that do create such responsibilities, but for a variety of substantive and procedural reasons those provisions cannot support its exercise of ancillary authority over Comcast's network management practices. We therefore grant Comcast's petition for review and vacate the challenged order.

[i_am_the_swammi]

You nor I would want the Conservative Republicans regulating what is allowed on the innernets. I would lose my porn, you would lose access to the Huffington Post and all the other left wing rags that are out there. Once government gets its claws into something it can be manipulated to suit the ideology of those in power.

 

I have never visited the Huffington Post or any left-wing rage...trust me, I can develop my own opinions without the input of braindead sheep.

 

Most urgently, we'd both lose our porn.

 

But to your point...if big business got a hold of the internet, couldn't they too manipulate its content to "suit the ideology of those in power"? Or, in their case, prevent you from viewing articles/ads that might lead you to opt for a different provider of services similar to their own (or similar to those with which they have aligned?

 

I'm not looking for the government to control what I see....I'm looking for them to make sure others cannot.