Net Neutrality's Second Coming

Don't always believe the purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington. Some of these DC pundits are so steeped in their own "knowledge" that they get stuck spinning their wheels when faced with evidence to the contrary.

This was the case for a few of Washington's finest who recently hunkered down behind their laptops to convince the world that Net Neutrality was dead and gone.

Greatly Exaggerated Rumors of a Death

The issue is a "fading memory," one crowed. It "barely raises a yawn" said another.

That Net Neutrality has remained a centerpiece of public activism outside the Beltway was lost on these naysayers.

The Road to Recovery

As any 12-step veteran can tell you, denial can be interpreted as a final cry for help. And more than one Potomac insider could use an intervention.

Fortunately, some of their colleagues have stepped in to report that the fight for Net Neutrality is alive and well. It's leading the news and being vigorously debated on the Hill and along the campaign trail.

Indeed, earlier today support for Net Neutrality emerged as the No. 1 issue that thousands of visitors to TechPresident had selected to be answered by all the presidential candidates. By Monday afternoon's count, more than twice as many people had voted for the Net Neutrality question over any other issue at 10Questions.com.

Sen. Barack Obama answered their question during a live forum on MTV. "Yes, I am a strong supporter of Net Neutrality," he said, adding that discrimination "destroys one of the best things about the Internet -- which is that there is this incredible equality there."

On the Hill and in the Media

On Capitol Hill, both Republicans and Democrats have joined in a call for urgent congressional action in defense of Net Neutrality. Last Thursday, Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) called for new hearings, citing recent incidents of blocking of cell-phone and Internet traffic.

The senators wrote that recent actions by Comcast and Verizon have raised "serious concern about the phone and cable companies' power to discriminate." They called upon the Senate Commerce Committee "to determine if they were based on legitimate business and network management policies or part of practices that would be deemed unfair and anti-competitive."

In less than two days, 10,000 activists wrote their members of Congress supporting the senators' call for hearings.

Net Neutrality has become the topic du jour among tech-forums and trade press as well, including prominent reports at SlashDot, Ars Technica, Consumerist, Machinist, BetaNews, WebProNews, GigaOm and, yes, even CNet News -- whose own DC navel gazer declared the "death of Net Neutrality" just a few weeks ago.

Gatekeepers in Need of a Solution

In mainstream press, Stephen H. Wildstrom, a senior technology writer and editor at BusinessWeek, wrote that he had shifted his position to support Net Neutrality following recent incidents of network gatekeeping. "The behavior of the top telecommunications companies, especially Verizon Communications and AT&T, has convinced me that more government involvement is needed to keep communications free of corporate interference," he wrote.

In the Washington Post, Rob Pegoraro wrote last week that customers ought to have a simple remedy in cases where the only Internet providers available attempt to block or slow their connections. "The network-neutrality debate will never go away as long as [the lack of choice in the ISP market] remains the case," he writes, "nor should it."

At the San Jose Mercury News, Vindu Goel writes that efforts to restore Net Neutrality protections had been unsuccessful in the absence of evidence that Internet providers were meddling with the free flow of information. He adds that all this has changed since Comcast began blocking peer-to-peer sharing.

"There was no real evidence that Internet providers were discriminating against any content," he concludes. "Now there is."

Life Beyond the Beltway

Net Neutrality has also been debated in recent issues of the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Wall Street Journal and in hundreds of new blog posts since early October.

So the next time some insider tells you that Net Neutrality is dead I advise you to check his pulse instead. Then point out the more than 1.5 million Americans - from every state and county across the nation -- who are taking action to protect the free and open Internet.

And if you can spare it, give him some change for bus fare and a map of the world beyond the Beltway.

Comments

[Guitarsandmore]

FCC Adopts Policy Statement
New Principles Preserve and Promote the Open and Interconnected Nature of Public Internet

Washington, D.C. " The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet: (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management.

Action by the Commission August 5, 2005, by Policy Statement (FCC 05-151).
Chairman Martin, Commissioners Martin, Abernathy, Copps, and Adelstein, with Chairman
Martin issuing a statement.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I think that the internet will be further regulated, taxed, and fiddled with in the future
just like you have 9 taxes on your phone bill,
the people that run it will figure out how to
charge more for it/charge premiums etc...

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

I remember it wasn't long ago when MySpace was censoring antiwar and Ron Paul references on people's personal sites. I don't know who chewed Rupert Murdoch's azz, but now Ron Paul has his own MySpace page.

YouTube not only takes down the naughty videos, but political videos too, especially the ones that expose the government's dark underbelly. They also manipulate the site ranking by deleting the viewing stats of videos they don't want you to see. "Videos They Don't Want You to See" is becoming a regular feature on my blog.

[thomasw78]

Please... Please... Please... don't regulate the internet. Its the only place we have left. That means down with Net Neutrality. The Net is already neutral we don't need an "Act"!!!

[Timothy Karr - Huffpost Blogger]

See Timothy Karr's Profile

Net Neutrality was a baseline protection for the Internet up until it was stripped away in 2005 by an FCC greatly under the influence of phone and cable lobbyists. The reason the Internet had flourished up until then -- with new innovations coming from outsiders and upstarts -- is because Net Neutrality had kept it open to free speech and new ideas without discrimination by gatekeepers.

Net Neutrality supporters aren't asking for new and cumbersome regulations but simply to restore the rule that had kept the Web open to democratic communications. The same rule that prevented companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon from blocking your ability to read or watch what you want using applications that you want to use.

[protagonia]

If you have more money than others, then HELP THE POOR EVEN MORE! Not doing so will only put everyone in peril.

If things are headed down the current path of greed and deception, then there won't be much to spend your money on anyway. It will be claimed by a synthetic Armaggeddon, driven by madmen.

We're supposed to protect this last, honest means of communication with the same dedication we give towards protecting our own children. Sadly, I think we do neither particularly well these days. Their future, as well as ours, is very questionable. The things we busy ourselves with are mostly exercises in pointlessness, compared to what we have in store.

For the SAKE of your children, protect the internet as if it were your child. It is more for them than for you.

[protagonia]

To clarify one point. Help those without your resources to stay up to date on the internet. Figure out a way, it's not impossible. They deserve truth too.

They are just you, under slightly different circumstances.

[mgloraine]

If we don't make Net Neutrality a formal, legal requirement for service providers, the "already neutral" status will vanish as those providers implement ways to charge you extra for access to what you have today. Worse still, they will seek to PROHIBIT web sites like the Huffington Post or any other which supports free speech. The ultra-wealthy neocons don't like people saying negative things about them, and they have the money to provide incentives to corporations, and private armies, spies and saboteurs to make sure they get their way. This is a class war and the internet is one battleground. You'd better decide whether you prefer the messy freedom of the open internet - Net Neutrality - or the restrictive, proprietary regimentation of BushCo's vision, something like compulsory Fox News with NSA contractors monitoring your surfing habits and reading your email.

[fn0rd]

"There was no real evidence that Internet providers were discriminating against any content," he concludes. "Now there is."

Absolutely, fundamentally, and emphatically incorrect.

If the facts are correct, Comcast is limiting the usage of a transport method, and couldn't care less whether the actual content is the pledge of allegiance, the latest episode of "24", or some tinfoil-hat-worthy documentary.

This would be akin to me claiming discrimination because I am not allowed to drive my car where I want, when I want - one-way signs or not! And don't get me started about those HOV lanes....

The entire "network neutrality" debate stinks of astroturfing, and if it were ever implemented, think for a second about the mechanisms and agencies who would be involved in setting up the policy, monitoring compliance, and enforcing standards. EFF? Nice guys, but they are up against lobbyists who can actually write checks, and discuss policy with senators on a private jet on the way to a "conference".

I want to pull my hair out when I listen to affluent wannabe techie-types screaming about their civil rights, knowing that if they actually got them, it would crush smaller ISPs, wipe out cheap VoIP providers, and be a path back to metered usage - do you remember when you had to pay for long-distance, and making a state-to-state call could actually cost money??

The telcos are focused on profit? NO WAY! (although being a former AT&T investor, I want to scream "ABOUT TIME, YOU DOLTS!")

So here's a radical idea: Let them. There's enough money out there to keep all of them ripping each others throats out, while we can reap the benefits.

[Rule Of Law]

In Japan and large parts of Europe price is held down through massive competition of carriers and freedom of information and its movement is maintained because people have so many choices. It is self enforcing!

Additionally, because of the competition, the speed of those networks is blazing compared to what we get here. Our entire network is antediluvian; and we pride ourselves on having invented the internet.

The evidence of censorship and blocking is there! Saying it's not doesn't make it go away. And the only kind of profit those monolithic giants want is the kind they get from monopoly of the industry. Yeah, it's about money, but it's also about turf and most importantly the power of information flow in our society.

The media is bought and paid for by the corporations that own our representatives. The consolidation of radio,tv, and print has eliminated many voices and opinions that once were able to be heard. The Internet scares the powers that would continue this pattern of information control. Without "network neutrality" the web becomes FOX 2.0.

[roald]

I have not taken the time to verify all of these examples from
http://blog.andrewparker.net/2007/10/29/net-neutrality-is-sexier-as-a-first-amendment-issue
and apologize if I missed or mis-staked something.

Several of the examples blow the "don't care about the content" argument. I didn't get away with that when I punched my brother on the arm and then apologized, repeatedly.

Please tell me more about the transport method Comcast has chosen to drop. In any case, if they want to modify things, they should go the RFC route.

- AT&T censored political lyrics in a Pearl Jam webcast (then apologized).
- Verizon initially blocked a mass text message from NARAL Pro-Choice America (then apologized).
- Comcast was found to be delaying BitTorrent and Lotus Notes traffic (and remains unapologetic).
- AT&T's new terms of service appeared to prohibit criticism of the company (the company apologized and changed the terms).

[blooddoc]

This is one battle the people can actually win if we all stand together and fight back. Greed is a drooling monster that's impossible to kill, but it can be driven back into its cave, out of sight if not of mind.

[Ani]

Excellent post, Mr. Karr. Thanks for keeping this subject alive and forefront.

Also, Neaguy -- I'm right with you when you mention John Edwards' long-time support of net neutrality. Mr. Edwards has my vote, for this, as well as myriad other reasons.

Okay, that's enough typing today for my very sore and still-healing wrist. It's worth the pain, however, to weigh in with one more small voice in this internet wilderness.

Keep the Internet FREE and OPEN!!!

All my best today,

Ani

[InofTouch]

that has to work the other way too...note that

[NoPCZone]

You are going to have to fight like a dog to preserve it. The TelCos and TeleComms are greedy and smell truckloads of money. They won't give up until they are pimp-slapped publicly and for the record.

[shockmagog]

Thanks Timothy. I am saving this post so when it falls off the front page I will have it to take advantage of all your informative links.

During last Summer's petition drive to the FCC, I passed along the info you provided to friends and acquaintances, and I was met with enthusiasm as well as alarm. They sent letters describing their own personal stakes in preserving Net Neutrality. They know full well that this issue lords above much else, as the Internet is the great equalizer for all of us, and it must be preserved and allowed to remain unrestrained and unfettered.

[Neaguy]

John Edwards supported net neutrality months ago.

Obama, apparently, just came around today?