iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Josh Silver

Josh Silver

Posted: October 18, 2010 02:26 PM

Observing the Federal Communications Commission is like watching a grinning politician in a giant hamster wheel going nowhere. Chairman Julius Genachowski just wasted an entire year trying to broker corporate compromises on policies that will shape our media and technology for generations. He has failed to make good on Obama's earnest promise to protect Net Neutrality - that prevents high speed Internet providers like Comcast and ATT from indiscriminately blocking or slowing Web traffic. He has failed to reassert FCC authority over those providers that was stripped by the Bush-era FCC. And he has failed to make any decisions that would restore America's role as a leader in fast, affordable Internet connections.

Every time Mr. Genachowski is faced with a moment that requires action to make good on his lofty promises and protect the American people, he dithers, calls for a new study, asks industry behemoths to solve policy issues for him, and keeps grinning and spinning: a style reminiscent of the regulatory failure that preceded the recent financial crisis and the Gulf oil spill. 2010-10-18-20101018Julius.jpgDisasters that could have been avoided if regulators had simply exercised meaningful oversight of the industries they were supposed to be monitoring. Those regulators dithered and capitulated, and our economy and our oceans are worse for it.

These failures share a common thread: a broader, ongoing government-wide failure to challenge the supremacy of industry lobbyists in Washington. The FCC Chairman clings to a myth that contaminates Washington: that he need never make tough choices that place the public interest squarely ahead of corporate interests; that consensus is always both possible and desirable; and that a policy that privileges the people's interest above corporate interests is by definition untenable, or even "radical." Yes, Washington has become that corrupted by special interest money, and yes our regulatory agencies are that corrupted by the industries they are supposed to police.

In the Chairman's world, a hostile letter from politicians tainted by phone and cable campaign contributions constitutes a legitimate reason not to act in the public interest. In the Chairman's world, the range of debate is dictated by corporate lobbyists and their friends with the financial resources to shape public opinion and exert political pressure. Pro-industry rhetoric from respected former politicians who feed at the corporate trough provide additional political cover. Industry-funded mercenaries with lovable names like "Americans for Prosperity" spew scintillating propaganda across television and radio outlets.

And the media are more interested in political bloodsport than substantive coverage of policy debates, or who pays the mercenaries' bills. Charges of "Marxist" and "socialist" rain down on public interest advocates and principled politicians, while wedge issues are wielded like grenades to manipulate honest folks against each other and for corporate-backed deregulation that continues the downward spiral of American politics. Indeed, in today's Washington, taking on corporate interests has become radical.

And it's about to get worse. Come November, you will hear a post-election chorus of media analysts declaring that the Democrats' agenda went too far. They'll say that the era of big government is over (again), and that the public has rejected calls for basic regulations or critical public programs. Those analysts will be wrong, deregulation will find new friends in government, and the largest companies will continue to run amuck while the American people foot the bill.

Recent congressional debates on Net Neutrality provide yet another example of industry capture of government. In the face of FCC inaction, Congressman Henry Waxman, one of the dwindling ranks of principled politicians, made a noble attempt to introduce legislation that would codify a few Internet protections that would prevent the largest Internet providers from creating fast and slow lanes on the Internet. But like may leaders in Congress, Waxman was forced to make huge compromises to gain industry support and GOP buy in.

Such policy compromises led some public interest groups - like the one I run - to part ways with supporters of the deal. And in the end, even the industry-supported bill was killed by House Republicans. The process revealed that even the most public interest minded legislators like Henry Waxman are forced to broker policy compromises that are a far cry from what the public needs and deserves. It shows how far big money, with an assist from big media, holds corrosive sway over our political process.

And most galling is that this entire legislative exercise was unnecessary. If the FCC would simply take its job of protecting consumers and the free and open Internet seriously, it could have successfully acted months ago. Instead, the hamster wheel continues to turn, the dithering continues, and the huge beneficiaries of such shocking inaction are? You guessed it: the big phone and cable companies who remain unregulated while the FCC shirks its responsibilities.

But protecting Net Neutrality is different. We cannot let it go the way of big banks and big oil, because it represents one of our best chances to reduce the influence of corporate interests in Washington, and replace propaganda with critical, accountable journalism, and web-based watchdogs.

Here's why: with low barriers to entry, an open Internet allows political campaigns to cheaply and effectively reach small donors, and over time, lessen their dependence on corporate money. That same open Internet creates a space for independent commentary and hard-hitting journalism, researched and written by journalists who aren't beholden to Washington mores, fierce profit pressures or the 24 hour news cycle. (How we pay for that kind of reporting - even if we've secured a distribution mechanism for it - is another issue I spend a lot of time thinking about.)

If the public can win this one battle, we will be in a better position to reshape Washington in our own images, and create a sustainable, accountable government that puts the public back in public policy.

So President Obama and Chairman Genachowski, hear this:

Ignore the lobbyists who would have you let them carve up the Internet.

Ignore the conventional wisdom of the chattering classes, who would have you believe that public policy is about appeasing Goliath while handing scraps to David.

Ask not whether government is too big or too small, but whether it works.

On Net Neutrality, government-that-works means ensuring that citizens, innovators, and creators -- not large corporations or the government - control the flow of information. It is the only way to ensure that the American people are the powerful actors that drive speech, democratic engagement, commerce, and culture.

Asserting that role can also be a first step toward setting aside childish things, seeing beyond narrow interests, and being leaders willing to make the hard choices that ensure that our government serves the American people.

It's the change we were promised and the change that we desperately need.

 

Follow Josh Silver on Twitter: www.twitter.com/freepress

 
 
  • Comments
  • 111
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
10:46 AM on 11/04/2010
Everyone thinks net neutrality is a god given right. The people that own the hardware support the internet. If people want true net neutrality it must be nationalized (inter=nationalized?) and supported by government funds. If you have cable tv you pay for HD, if you have phone service you pay for text/internet. What is so different for paying for more if you hog the broadband with hd games and movies? Why should a person doing simple email pay the same as a 14 hour a day online gamer????
05:20 PM on 10/19/2010
ATTENTION SHEEPLE!!!:

It's no wonder this country is going to hell, the left fails to see the faults of the left, and the right can't see the shortcomings of the right.

Divide and conquer, as they say, it's just sad so many Americans are so gullible. Really, do you think EITHER side works for you? If you do, you watch too much of the LEFT controlled mass media, the RIGHT owns the radio, in case you didn't know that.

Really though, I shouldn't be surprised, we are a failure compared to the rest of the world, and between your ill-informed flame wars, and the failure to admit either side is wrong, it's no wonder.

I just hope you all have the GUTS to really stand up the day you need to, it'll be soon.

Just so you know, lefties, even though Bush was a total lackey, so is Obama and his cabinet. Has everyone forgotten all the Wall-street cronies he has working for him? And, BTW, Nancy Pelosi has already tried to censor radio, so don't pretend DEMS are any better than the GOP.

Hopefully, maybe someday, people will research the TRUTH, instead of just the "facts" that support their side of the argument. Maybe someday, you'll all admit you've been duped.

Step 1 : We admitted we were powerless..... all that jazz, because obviously you are all addicted to lies....
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:33 PM on 10/19/2010
"Ask not whether government is too big or too small, but whether it works." Wonderful, thanks. Vote democrat this election, How sad that anybody would vote to put the lying GOP that crashed the economy back in power.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tinyrainbows
03:53 AM on 10/19/2010
WOW...how can someone who heads an organization called frees press want to restrict the internet to "reshape Washington in our own images"? Whose image...the Left's? The only reason they want restrictions is because nobody listens to the left.
07:55 AM on 10/19/2010
The image of the public. As in: government, at it's best, should be an accurate representation of the general public.

Reading comprehension. It's a good thing.
photo
Democrat in the South
Empathy, the most important word
09:32 AM on 10/19/2010
How much did you get paid to say that? And who is "they" and "nobody"?

Sorry, put my comment in the wrong place.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
raoulhubris
Subvert the dominant paradigm!
10:39 PM on 10/18/2010
When they've taken control of the internet, we will do an end around and come up with yet another way to encourage the free exchange of ideas. Corporations will try to prey on any means of communication.
photo
Totto
"Not 'Noise' One Round: *Music*
10:55 AM on 10/19/2010
We already have the "telescreens", soon there will be "Corporate Big Brother". F&F!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ScreenName05
10:15 PM on 10/18/2010
So we need government interference in the internet, so we can avoid government interference in the internet. Make sure this guy is not writing any of the logic routines used in your internet app!
03:28 AM on 10/19/2010
You are making the standard bogus talking point that conservatives use all the time about "free" markets: Unregulated markets are NOT THE SAME as free markets. Markets almost always require some level of regulation in order to be free markets (e.g., information about the markets is equally available to all investors, and entrenched interests are prevented from creating artificial barriers to entry for new investors).

Over-regulation of markets is bad, but under-regulation is worse. Or hadn't you noticed the recent collapse of society?
09:35 PM on 10/18/2010
Fair Tax! It eliminates the need for lobbyists. Problem Solved, where's my Nobel?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaddup
09:57 PM on 10/18/2010
Fair tax is not so fair for the people whose incomes are the most needy. Progressive taxation is what this country was founded upon. Look it up.
12:30 AM on 10/19/2010
Fair Tax places an unfair burden on the middle class, and discourages spending. What we really need is a Marginal Flat Tax.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaddup
09:25 PM on 10/18/2010
Someone argued that since govt. is so big, we should trust the corporations. They were wrong. And here's links to numerous episodes of corporate malfeasance: http://thinkprogress.org/?cat=17
Remember, corporations used to have to prove they were to the benefit of the country. I'm thinking we should start that program up again.
GlennInVenice
Venice; Where Art Meets Crime
09:14 PM on 10/18/2010
Freedom of the Internet is as essential today as freedom of the press or freedom of speech.

In the last two decades we have already lost SO much Internet freedom and access to content that the acronym WWW is no longer accurate.

As newspapers and magazines begin to pass the baton onto the Web it is more essential than ever that the providers of access to the new media not be able to manipulate the price, speed, or accessibility of content. Otherwise it is like giving Fox News the editorial power over network news.

One of the problems is that the Internet is now eating into the visual entertainment delivery market in the same way that it decimated the music industry eliminating the role of several non-value added middle players. That is a good thing but not to the behemoth corporate providers who see clouds on their horizon.

It is essential to freedom and the "American way" that we watch what happens here CLOSELY before we lose the power of this new medium and have our civil liberties once again diminished leaving us further prone to propaganda and manipulation.
08:41 PM on 10/18/2010
It appears that some of the commenters here don't recognize that "network neutrality" is not a populist or consumer agenda; it's a corporate one. "Network neutrality" is the corporate regulatory agenda of Google, which has multiple Internet monopolies and invades consumers' privacy at every opportunity. Don't buy the falsehoods of DC corporate lobbyists who claim that "network neutrality" regulation would serve the public interest. (They're merely claiming that "what's good for Google is good for the country.") We have too much corporate control and too many lobbyists in DC as it is.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaddup
09:29 PM on 10/18/2010
NN has nothing to do with corporate regulation, other than the lack of it on the internet invented by our taxpaying dollars.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
07:51 PM on 10/18/2010
The entire net neutrality brouhaha amounts to whether phone companies can control what they send from cell towers to phones.

Phone companies figure: we put up the cell towers, the phones have a private protocol, why is the government telling us what we send? In particular, the only way to do video to cell phones is to accelerate some of it, not everything there is on the web (see "edge servers").

The whole thing is about video to cell phones, that's the only thing that needs acceleration and preferential treatment. Nothing on this or other information sites needs it, and no one is blocking any site.

Meanwhile, new HDTVs sold today can access youtube, netflix, few others but can't surf the web. TVS SOLD TODAY ARE HARDWIRED TO CERTAIN INTERNET SITES, you can't access others. You call that "net neutrality"? Worry about TVs, not video on your cell phones.

Please leave tech issues to us geeks, stick to politics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaddup
09:31 PM on 10/18/2010
I could care less about TV's and phones. I want information, quickly, from many sources.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
10:03 AM on 10/19/2010
If you don't use a cell connection (to phone or iPad) net neutrality will never make a difference. It's about selectively accelerating some sites, not blocking any. Only video needs that acceleration, and video works well already, everywhere but over cell connections.

I'm on a PC right now, nobody is doing anything to degrade that connection, never will.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
xanas
libertarian, voluntarist, anarchist
07:47 PM on 10/18/2010
End subsidized internet service. End net neutrality. It forces those who use the internet little or who only use specific sites to pay for others (including me). I don't want other people to have to pay for me. I'm willing to pay in accordance with my usage and not to be taxed to pay the FCC for regulating the internet (which would assuredly end up with attempts to censor the internet as well...)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaddup
09:59 PM on 10/18/2010
The internet was invented by the U.S. Government to be free for all. The ultimate game changer in equality.
08:00 AM on 10/19/2010
It does not do that, at all. That's not what NN means. The reason why providers won't let you pay for access only to certain websites is the same reason you can't pay for only the TV channels you want to watch. They make more money the other way. NN doesn't change that one way or the other.
07:40 PM on 10/18/2010
I'm not too sure that I know entirely what net neutrality is though I certainly can understand how big money or those powers that be if you will want and succeed with their money to control everything wherein they can continue raking in the greater part of our monthly incomes. When we see a government that isn't in the pockets of big money doing their will then I think we might see such things as net neutrality along with socialized, yes socialized, that's government facilitated, non-profit services for the people sure to really tick those powers with money off.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Berettasskeeter
For what we are about to receive, may we be truly
07:44 PM on 10/18/2010
How will you force people to provide non-profit services?
Semper fi
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CroatianCritter
is keeping people honest
07:35 PM on 10/18/2010
I completely agree with you. But once again, the "liberals" on this website fail to understand that this government is not going to do anything to protect the populace. The FCC has done a good job of protecting the internet so far but the money that corporations have and the influence that they have over EVERYTHING shows me that we will eventually lose Net Neutrality and turn control of the internet over to the multimedia companies. The one thing that many liberals fail to understand is that this government has slowly been abandoning its duties of protecting our populace over the past 40 years despite the fact that the government has grown tremendously. This is never looked at on this site. The corporations control the government and use it as a tool to control education, science, taxation, etc. Why do you think they attack Medicare and Social Security? These are the only two social programs that they have not gained control over yet. And they will eventually get these too. So, what is the solution? Simple! We need to bankrupt this government. It is a harsh short term solution but this eliminates the control mechanism via the pro-corporate laws that our Congress passes. There are very few pieces of legislation passed since 1980 that did not benefit corporations in some major way. There are other ways to fix this problem also but believing that OUR LEADERS will fix these issues through their goodwill is naive.
08:19 AM on 10/19/2010
"This is never looked at on this site."

It actually is, repeatedly. Search the archives.

Bankrupting the government would be an excellent way to make sure that corporations can take over the country much more swiftly and efficiently than they have been.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
CroatianCritter
is keeping people honest
08:22 PM on 10/20/2010
Untrue. When you have regulation, it allows the corporation to abdicate its responsibilities. They only have to do what the government thinks is appropriate. When a corporation does not have regulation, it is more likely that they will regulate themselves. Look at the California pipeline explosion. It was no surprise to me that a California regulatory company was in charge of maintaining the health of the system. If this agency was not part of it, the company would be responsible. If that explosion had occurred, the company would have been bombarded with lawsuits and fees that it would have had to pay to citizens whose lives were disrupted by the fire. When you look at it this way, you see that government is more likely to create laws and regulations that protect corporations from engaging in competitive behavior. Do you think if government regulators weren't responsible for the minimum standards that were enforced on deep sea drilling, BP may have actually created a plan to deal with oil spills. They expected the government to bail them out and they were partially right (See the Coast Guard's treatment of journalists and other workers who tried to clean up the area). If a company without government oversight is irresponsible, they will likely go out of business due to illegal behavior. All our government does is allow the illegal behavior to occur. I guess you don't think about this possibility, do you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
The Perceiver
07:28 PM on 10/18/2010
Hence why amending the Constitution to get doner money out of electoral campaigns proves vital:
http://mov­etoamend.o­rg/get-inv­olved
http://www.callaconvention.org
photo
kathy001
Don't bogart that duck
11:04 AM on 10/19/2010
Absolutely!