With breathtaking hypocrisy, the phone and cable companies' K Street lobbyists are fighting an all-out war against the Net Neutrality proposal at the Federal Communications Commission that would protect Internet users from censorship or blocking by Internet providers and the government.
When in Washington, the companies claim that investment will cease and the sky will fall. But when talking to investors, Comcast CEO Brian Roberts is sending a clear message to Wall Street that he's not really that worried about the FCC's plan.
In April, a federal appeals court ruled that the FCC has no authority to regulate Internet providers: the result of a decision by the Bush-era FCC, which changed how broadband was treated under the law. The Obama FCC could "reclassify" broadband under the law and reassert its authority to protect Internet users.
But AT&T, Verizon and Comcast -- the biggest Internet providers -- have filed reams of legal documents with the FCC objecting to Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposal to modernize agency rules. They've flooded the hallways of Congress with lobbyists to spread fear and uncertainty about the FCC plan. And an industry front group just launched a $1.4 million smear campaign to kill the FCC proposal.
But outside of the Beltway and the press, Comcast is singing a different tune. According to the investment analysis report SNL Kagan, Comcast's Roberts said he expects the industry to continue to invest, and innovate and that "the government is not a big worry."
So while the Chairman of the biggest cable company in the United State is sounding reasonable, back on K Street, his hit men keep spewing disingenuous and reckless rhetoric.
In modern-day Washington, of course, facts have become irrelevant in the face of deep-pocketed, industry-funded PR shops and mercenary political hit groups whose sole objective is to remove all reasonable government oversight that would protect consumers at the expense of corporate profits.
Phone can cable companies are running television ads calling Net Neutrality a "government takeover of the Internet" when the opposite is true. They call advocates of reasonable government oversight "socialists" or "Marxists" and stir up McCarthy-esque fear campaigns, using lies and elaborate conspiracy theories.
These kind of smear tactics and diversion from substance that disgusts and alienates Americans both liberal and conservative, and allows misguided industry-backed policies to win the day and fail the nation. Americans pay a steep price when government "gets out of the way." That's what led to millions of gallons of crude oil gushing into the Gulf at this moment. It's at the heart of the banking crisis and the mining tragedy in West Virginia; and of an election process that has turned our democracy into pay to play corruption.
In the media and technology sector, lack of government oversight is what led to America's global decline in broadband speed and adoption. It is what put basic protections for Internet users like Net Neutrality in jeopardy. It is what led to runaway media consolidation. And it is what helped lead us to shuttered bureaus and empty newsrooms and so much of the country left in the dark about what is happening in their own communities.
Free markets often don't work without some government involvement to establish the rules of the road. This is especially true in markets like broadcasting, cable and Internet access - where there are just a few companies offering access to communications.
It's time to put to rest industry calls for blind abandonment of government oversight and hold our elected leaders accountable. It's time to look at the facts, and summon the courage to advance the policies that will make our communications system, our economy, our information society, and our democracy work for everyone - not just for the largest companies.
Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress
Fortune's Stanley Bing: A Shout-Out to Lobbyists
But aren't we being a bit unfair to lobbyists? They have a job like any other. I knew a few of them, and they were very nice. If others were writing the script right now, they would be our heroes. If we're not careful, they may well be again.
Ian Bremmer: Have We Really Come To 'The End Of The Free Market'?
When you write a book called The End of the Free Market, you can be pretty sure what the first question is going to be: "Do you really believe we're seeing the end of the free market? Really?"
You know you're on the right track.
The louder they scream, the farther you should go.
Telecommunications means that there has to be government oversight, public safety, priviacy, ect. ensuring the free exchange if information.
Information Service was the term that it was changed to. Whitch means there is no oversight, no protection, no safety, no privacy, ect.
By changing the definition, it robbed the FCC of the responsibility for overseeing operations, and regulation of our ability to communicate freely. It took the internet out of the public and put it in private corporations. Whitch gives these corporations the ability to controll everything that happens online.
According to Michel Cupps (head of the FCC) we need to change the law definition back to telecommunications, then it will protected and allowed (by law) to the free exchange of speech.
Is there a need for a local cable monopoly? No. If local government would allow all cable companies to sting cable to every home, there would be real competition, not just in choice but also on price and options of plans available. There would also not be any arguments about Net Neutrality. There would be too much competition for customers to worry about limiting access.
Even the old dial up's are gone.
I pay three times what I did two years ago for internet access, and the government has done nothing about what is obviously price gouging, and a monopoly.
If there was a petition I could sign to save net neutrality, I'd do it, but sadly, my elected officials here are predominately Republican and could care less what I think.
When I contacted my representatvies I got the "Government Internference is Bad-Regulation is Bad- Net Neutrality is Bad" response. I sent rebuttals and have not yet received a reply. But it is imperative that we keep hounding them on this instead of letting their antiregulation rhetoric poison the airwaves with lies. If you look at other sites-specifically the conservative ones-it is frightening how many are already buying the bullsh*t that Net Neutrality is just an evil Obama plot to take away our internet privileges and curtail the right to free speech when it is in fact designed to protect both.
Net neutrality is a principle proposed for user access networks participating in the Internet that advocates no restrictions by Internet Service Providers or governments on content, sites, or platforms, on the kinds of equipment that may be attached, and on the modes of communication allowed, as well as communication that unreasonably degrades other traffic
Ask why Comcast wishes to continue being allowed to throttle internet speeds and bar access to certain sites. It is because they would be forced to upgrade their systems and that costs money. They do not wish to spend money. Comcast is not fighting 'the big bad government" for your benefit.
their goal censor any tv program/website that they want.
"a lie repeated often enough becomes the truth"
glenn beck
information czar fox news
the view 5/20/09
"when the truth is found to be lies"
jefferson airplane