Leaders of the Internet's grassroots community have made it clear that inaction by the FCC is not an option when it comes to keeping the Web open and accessible.
In a series of posts and statements, bloggers for DailyKos, FireDogLake, OpenLeft.com, the American Prospect and other influential sites have expressed dismay that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski would consider abandoning the agency's role as watchdog over the Internet.
Bloggers were joined by online advocacy groups including MoveOn, CredoAction, ColorofChange.org, SavetheInternet.com, Care2 and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which are urging the FCC chair not to abdicate his responsibility to stop corporations from picking and choosing how users access information over the Internet.
| Obama pledges to appoint Net Neutrality supporters to the FCC |
According to the Post, Genachowski is "leaning toward keeping the current regulatory framework for broadband services" -- the one option that leaves the communications commission toothless in its oversight of 21st century communications.
This is a bad idea, writes Fred von Lohman of online civil liberties group EFF. "There is little chance future network neutrality rules could withstand a court challenge if the FCC rests on the same discredited argument that the court just rejected."
If the Post's reporting is correct, Genachowski is "simply hanging onto whatever authority the courts and the law have left to the FCC, and try to hold the telecoms accountable that way," writes Nancy Scola of the American Prospect. "If that's indeed the FCC's plan, it's kinda laughable. It's like switching to a knife in a gun fight you're already losing."
Not only is the future of the Internet at stake, but also Genachowski's legacy at the FCC. He came into office based on his commitment to protect the open Internet. President Obama is a staunch supporter of Net Neutrality, who pledged to voters that he would appoint leaders to the FCC that shared his beliefs - a conviction Genachowski seemed to share.
Genachowski can put this conviction into action by simply reclassifying broadband as a "telecommunications service." The Bush-era FCC, under intense lobbying from big telecom companies, had removed this classification leaving the FCC with very limited powers to stop providers from blocking Internet users.
"If AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast prefer to have the current regulatory framework maintained, it's because it makes for an FCC that has weak authority over broadband, and net neutrality could be the cost," writes Joan McCarter of DailyKos.
The Obama administration and FCC now face a choice, writes Jason Rosenbaum at FireDogLake:
"They can do nothing [and] accept Bush's handicapping and an unregulated Internet, or they can 'reclassify' broadband as a telecommunications service -- which the Supreme Court said was in their power -- fixing a Bush mistake and returning the Internet to the regulatory framework Congress intended."
"Protecting Net Neutrality had been perhaps the Obama administration's most progressive accomplishment," writes Chris Bowers of OpenLeft.com. "However, this point of light in the Obama administration may be fading."
Chairman Genachowski is now squarely in the crosshairs of the netroots community. Should he cave to corporate special interest and sell out Net Neutrality, it will become the signature action of a failed Obama appointee.
In an age when corporations can spend unlimited sums to influence policy and campaigns, the netroots must speak out or risk losing the only open communications platform we have left. We can't endure another broken promise from Washington. We must draw the line at Net Neutrality.
Follow Timothy Karr on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TimKarr
Assuming that the FCC Chairman's proposal is reasonable, it's a clear signal that the FCC is backing away from the cliff, and charting a path toward a sensible broadband policy framework that will protect consumers and promote universal access.
I don't think talking about "freedom" on the internet is good enough because Republicans believe "freedom" means something else.
web site response: instant
live video viewing: continuous and uniterrupted and smooth
We can't go on talking about bandwidth because the providers can always spin an argument that you have the bandwidth you are paying for.
It;s like your tv, either its working or its not and you don't want to get bogged down talking about bits and bytes to the cable guy. You just want the damn thing to work.
For years, American businesses have stalled technology for fears of losing control of profit margins.
We didn't invent more efficient cars, faster networks, better trains and infrastructure, because we made so much money on what we had. They said capitalism would drive technology and force competition, but unfortunately we wait until things are so broken, they have to be fixed.
Now our trains are slow and lose money, our buses are dirty, our cars are dirty, our networks are slow and more expensive than anything in the world.
I would say that Cell phones are a plus, but our cell phones are 5 times slower than japan, and cost 3 times as much.
Voice is speed sensitive and you can't have delays built into t phone conversation. The conversation would not make sense to you.
But I can slow down data traffic and still it makes sense at the other end.
Some service is time sensitive while others is not.
Voip providers know this and so want to separate out the voice traffic from the emails, data transfers,and other lower priority services.
That's not a conspiracy or trying to get rich --- its trying to make the thing work!!
The last paragraph should be at the top.
If Net Neutrality goes, the last bastion of a free and unfettered interchange of ideas in the public arena is lost, probably forever and with it, our democracy.
FWIW
if we lose the Net we can just line up next to the fence with the razor wire. isnt obvious to everyone that the courts are gone - the system of choosing or electing judges is a failed invention? the citizens have no advocates left in government, they must do their own legislating now.
it is showndown time.
Unless you want your internet price tiered like your cable channels, we must make this happen.
We need the FCC in charge of these behemoth corporations, before it is too late.
The day that the government starts placing mandates on the way that these service providers manage their private property is the day when you will begin to suffer in the areas of price and availability. The government has destroyed everything else that it has placed its hands on and it will destroy this too. You will pay.
They will tier the internet, place no bandwidth demands on providers, allow huge monopolies, and charge the American people as much per megabyte as humanly possible under the law.
Soon enough, if you cannot afford it, you will only get the news they want you to have.
The truth will cost you extra.
In another 15 years, most of these ignorance loving bigots will be dead, and we can finally change our country into a 21st century nation that bases it's laws on facts and science, instead of profit margin, fantasy gods, and denial of what is measurably real.
(Sorry, I think I am just in a bad mood after seeing those gulf photos)
I know. It is sad. Perhaps it is simply a two-fold problem:
1. A vernacular and ignorance issue.
and
2. An assumption that the internet that was founded on openness and neutrality will always be that way. Human beings have been known to take things for granted until the moment they are gone.
Net Neutrality is a line in the sand for me.
Google already has monopolies on Internet search, Internet search advertising, Internet banner advertising, and Internet video -- and is interested in expanding its empire still more.The regulations would help it do this by regulating ISPs but not Google. Those same regulations would increase the cost of Internet access, harm the quality of your Internet service, destroy competition (leaving you with fewer choices or maybe only one choice), and deter deployment to unserved areas. Don't support them just because Mr. Karr, a DC lobbyist, claims you should.
"Net neutrality" is bad. Tell you Senators and Representatives to oppose it on all grounds.
We need regulation for many reasons. It is probably a waste to explain it for you, so just go read.
End users pay for bandwidth. Providers pay for bandwidth. (We pay at least 4x what other countries pay for 1/5th the bandwidth) So we already pay for access on both ends.
Big telecommunications would like to charge more for bandwidth, based on what you use on your internet connection. If you browse YouTube, they charge more. If you use NetFlix streaming movies, they charge more. If you use Skype, you guessed it, they charge more.
If they cannot charge more because they actually have someone competing, (85% of markets have no real competition for broadband) they do what we call "throttling" to slow that service to a crawl, so you will choose their "pay per view" or "on demand", or hold your packets up when you make a call on Skype, so you become frustrated choose their telephone package, or they simply lower your bandwidth limits too raise your bill.
This is all about the consumer folks. Don't let some lawyer on a lobby payday tell you different.