Exactly a year ago, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski made a 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.
| Genachowski: Still Undecided |
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.
He needs to decide, and soon.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
Art Brodsky: PTSD at the FCC -- An Unhappy Anniversary
I don't agree with the idea that if we fail to enact some sort of net neutrality rules now, we won't be able to in the future.
Even with FCC regulations, it's more expensive for me to call my buddy who lives one county over than it costs me to call, say, New Mexico. Even with FCC regulation, I have to pay $10 per month to get my telephone company to *not* block the caller-ID stream, which I find particularly egregious.
I'm no libertarian and am a big fan of smart regulation, but the FCC doesn't exactly have an impressive track record.
It's coming. He's just waiting for the Team of Lobbyists to put the finishing touches on writing the law.
In 2007 Obama said he is a strong supporter of Net Neutrality. Translated from ObamaSpeak, that means "You retards can kiss Net Neutrality goodbye."
What online freedoms are those?
Regular Network TV = FCC
Cable TV = No FCC
Terestrial Radio = FCC
Satalite Radio = No FCC
I don't see the FCC getting involved and making anything better for me.
http://www.isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml
Internet Society (ISOC) All About The Internet: History of the Internet
It's not a great place for your half-baked conspiracy theories.
And, if you ask me, Obama has renounced every promise he made and become a corporate centrist, which is nothing like a Democrat and nothing like what the people who voted for him wanted or expected.
I have to admit that I also realized, literally on Day One ,when he announced that he was keeping Mullen, Gates and Petreaus, that it was over, and I maintain that to this day he (Obama) has never gotten better.
He is the worst and the truth is that he is just as much a war criminal as George Jr. and we should also prosecute Bill while we're at it. For the record, I lost all respect for Clinton when he hugged Pappy Bush (mind you that was after the non-event of the Rich pardon), and the reason I lost all respect for him is because he hugged Bush because he thought that would prop up his image, and then I knew that he was no different from the rest of the criminals, or should I say slave masters, who run this country.
That change was just a campaign slogan.
He's about to get his degree in video game design - the group he's working for has been lauded for their progressive vision in the industry - they're designing a new type of MMO (massive multi-player on-line games) along the lines of World of Warcraft and Farmville. Eleven million people play WOW now ... you'd better believe the industry cares about net-neutrality ... as do the people that actually play the MMO's.
His company believes the gaming taking an active role in the moral debate in a variety of creative ways - notably in business models. The idea being that business would actively seek these programs out. Both the MMO's and these business targeted programs would and do, depend on the internet.
If net neutrality is not guaranteed - it puts so much at risk - far beyond these two examples. But the point is - the kids care about this issue, and they care a LOT.
This is one issue where Obama could impact the youth vote. Will he do it? I'm not going to hold my breath.
*
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/justice-department-piracy/#ixzz10Aeo5Tmt
Our government began governing by lie during Bush the Younger years. Piracy and other issues are not solved by regulation--they are solved by aggressively pursuing existing law.