Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiTelecommunications giant AT&T says no one should worry about their aggressive lobbying to eliminate net neutrality -- the first amendment of the internet that guarantees equality of access to all websites.
AT&T executives claim they would never interfere with web content.
When Americans hear this spin, they should hang up on AT&T.
The truth is that, within business circles, the company is already promoting its schemes for "shaping" the internet if net neutrality protections fall.
And a good sense of how the telecommunications corporation would like to "shape" the world wide web can be gleaned from reports of how AT&T managed the live webcast of last weekend's Lollapalooza concert when it came time for Pearl Jam to perform.
The Seattle-based band has a long history of highlighting smart political statements -- about war and peace, protecting the environment and promoting tolerance -- in its songs and in the on-stage comments of lead singer Eddie Vedder.
But on Sunday, when Pearl Jam was performing the song "Daughter" during the Lollapalooza festival in Chicago, the band broke into a version of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall." Reworking the lyrics of the classic rock song, Vedder sang, "George Bush, leave this world alone" and "George Bush, find yourself another home."
The lyrics that criticized Bush were muted in the webcast.
Coincidence? Not at all.
AT&T admits that the censorship occurred. The company describes the muting of Vedder's references to a president who appoints Federal Communications Commissioners -- and, thus, has a major role in deciding whether AT&T gets what it wants -- as "a mistake by a webcast vendor."
Then, in a nice Orwellian twist, the company declares, "We have policies in place with respect to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not censor performances."
In fact, "editing excessive profanity" is censorship.
And, of course, Vedder's lyrics about Bush, which were not profane, did in fact get censored.
Web-savvy Pearl Jam fans noted the silencing of the message and immediately contacted the band. Pearl Jam members released a statement on the censorship incident that declared, "This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media. AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media."
Pearl Jam's statement continued: "What happened to us this weekend was a wake-up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band."
The band's right. The censorship of Pearl Jam by AT&T serves as a reminder of what will be lost if net neutrality is eliminated and telecommunications corporations are free to decide which web sites are on "the information superhighway of the future" and which are on the gravel road of slow or impossible connections.
"This event shows that companies like AT&T will risk the appearance of censorship by turning off the sound on a webcast that's being viewed by thousands of people, just because it works counter to their financial interests," says Jenny Toomey, the executive director of the Future of Music Coalition, which has been working to defend net neutrality. "What do you think they will do to protect their financial interests on the web when no one is looking?"
Tim Karr, of the Save the Internet coalition, adds that, "AT&T's history of breaking trust with their customers includes: handing over private phone records to the government; promising to deliver services to underserved communities and then skipping town; and pledging never to interfere with the free flow of information online while hatching plans... to build and deploy technology that will spy on user traffic."
"The moral of this story is put Net Neutrality permanently into law and never trust AT&T at their word," says Karr. "The company acts in bad faith toward the public interest and will do whatever it can to pad it's bottom line -- including sacrificing its users freedom to choose where they go, what they watch and whom they listen to online."
John Nichols is a co-founder of Free Press and the co-author with Robert W. McChesney of TRAGEDY & FARCE: How the American Media Sell Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy — The New Press.
© 2007 The Nation
42 Comments so far
Show AllRELATED:
This one is really a no brainier. Here again, in "The American Experience" -- we have yet another evil *racketeering* (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, RICO) corporate alliance (the telcoms and cable providers) *conspiring* with the MPAA and the RIAA (the political lobbies for the entertainment industry.)
In comes the filthy dirt bag lawyers -- like RIAA's senior counsel Richard Gabriel in Capitol Records v Jammie Thomas --- and the associated lengthy list of lead entertainment industry racketeers, i have posted for your scrutiny below.
I have learned a great deal about bit torrenting and the related technical aspects from this website and i want to personally thank all of those who have contributed their 2 cents worth in offering your potential technical solutions to the problem.
However, the issue of indiscriminate throttling of services is an action that runs contrary to an ISP's advertised claims and therefore is fraudulent, plain and simple.
When you sell something, a product or a service, as a fair business trade practice, you are required to disclose all of the *material facts* associated with the product or service you are providing to the public, that could *potentially affect the end-user's performance at the receiving end*.
There is no direct and honest "forthright" disclosure about the limiting or "throttling" of the advertised services. FULL DISCLOSURE at the *point of sale* is the key here and instead what you are seeing is evasive behavior by ISP customer service departments and the ISP technicians they represent; all essentially acting as automatons for the MPAA and RIAA. It's pathetic when you think about it.
Because of the grand scale of the racketeering effort, it truly then becomes *a constitutional issue* -- as willful technical efforts to indiscriminately interfere with bit torrent downloads, constitutes policing and therefore is a form of unreasonable search and seizure of data streams, contrary to the ISP's advertising and public disclosure.
Yes, it is true, this is being done on privately held network entities, although those giant ISPs maintain a monopoly over the big pipes, so therefore it does in fact become a constitutional and anti-trust threat to our society.
Now we have to rely on the government and the courts (who also cannot be trusted and are controlled by K Street lobbyists) see to it that our civil liberties in "net neutrality" do not cave in to the evil, thug racketeering corporate power brokers (RIAA and MPAA) who are ultimately beholden to organized criminals.
To condense this all legally:
What we have here is a willful conspiracy effort by the RIAA and the MPAA, working inside the boardrooms of the big telecoms and cable companies to stamp out, *via a technical dragnet*, anyone who shares large files over the web, in order for *the mob* to take full control of file sharing, all in the name of *perceived unlawful sharing and duplication* of "alleged" copyrighted material.
This "fight" reminds me so much of the VCR and Audio Cassette Deck legal wars of the 70's -- when RIAA and the MPAA thugs were suing Sony and Panasonic in order to stop them from producing cassette decks and VCRs, that people were using to copy and share movies and music.
Of Course, the RIAA and MPAA lost in the end, as they ultimately will lose on this legal front. Phyrric victories like Capitol Records v Thomas (RIAA recently got a jury to award Capitol Records of over $22,000 of Ms. Thomas' hard earned money). These tactics are tantamount to the RIAA mob thugs who break the kneecaps of restaurant owners and shopkeepers who won't pay out yearly blood money to the RIAA, in order for their businesses to play music (even the radio) over the store's sound system.
It's nothing more than gangland style tactics and it is once again being revisited here with bit torrenting, via a **conspiracy to collectively defraud end-users of ISPs*** so that the RIAA and MPAA can collect their "toll money".
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/riaa/index.html
RIAA Lawyers
Cary H. Sherman, President
Neil I. Turkewitz, Executive Vice President
Dean Garfield, Vice President, Legal Affairs
Jonathan P. Whitehead, Vice President and Anti-Piracy Counsel, Internet and New Media
Linda R. Bocchi, Vice President Royalty Administration and Associate General Counsel
Steven M. Marks, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel
Denise Incorvaia
Paul D. Russinoff
Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)
Frederick E. Attaway, Executive Vice President & Washington, D.C. General Counsel
Karin S. Newman, Counsel, State Legislation
Barbara L. Rosenfeld
Walid Nasser
Melissa Beth Patack
Axel Ausdermuhlen
William Billick
Daniel Robbins
David T. Fluornoy
Jonathan D. Liebowitz
Jane Saunders
Earthlink is one of the top twelve outsource companies in the US. Go with Earthlink and you'll be getting your tech support from Mumbai.
Don't forget, AT&T is an internet service provider too.
I used to have them for dial up. It was really crappy service, very slow, even for dial up. But what got me to switch was when I found out that they were censoring my incoming mail. I would not receive any incoming mail from Moveon.org or from the Huffington Post.
Cancel your AT&T ISP too.
Susanw & ezeflyer: Wait on that switch. I was an Earthlink customer for 10 years until I found out that they're owned by scientologists. Look it up. Plus they outsource all of their jobs overseas. Whenever I spoke to someone, it was interesting how they all had east Indian accents.
Chris: WorkingAssets is the best company in the world, BUT they do not offer highspeed internet service. I have kept very close tabs on them, but haven't noticed any changes. I just went to their site and didn't see it offered. I was a customer of theirs for 4 years. I still have a WA credit card. I want to quit AT&T ASAP, but what are comparable options?
Kinda of makes me long for the days when we all heard about some bands getting together on some farm in upstate New York. Hitched a ride, got a little stoned, holy shit where did all these people come from? Guys hung some speakers up on some rickity (held out pretty well though) scaffolding, bands plugged in and well,,,,hell that was fun; no freakin cell phones, no freakin corporate sponsors, just mud, rain, song and each other. What the hell have we become?
I was once a customer of Bellsouth, whom AT&T just recently merged with. In 2005, I began to notice a 3rd party picking up on my phone calls whenever I dialed a number. I quickly cancelled my service with them. My point is to warn you of Bellsouth's beligerence as well as AT&T's, when it comes to violating individual rights of privacy. They care nothing about customer records remaining confidential. Profit over principle continues to run rampant through america, and probably the middle east too,(reason for war in Iraq). Please write your congressman and demand a change in ethics !
I would also encourage forwarding this story to the FCC.gov .
Here is the complaint department - fccinfo@fcc.gov .
Beekeeper wrote: "Once again, never spend a penny..."
STOP right there! Don't switch from AT&T to someone else, switch to NONE OF THE ABOVE! Drop out of the consumer/corporate treadmill!
Invest in some land that can produce food or energy. Buy used stuff when you must buy; salvage what you can. Starve the beast!
For an alternative to AT&T wireless and long distance services, there is Working Assets, at http://www.workingassets.com
I just switched from AT&T too, and got a better deal.
I'm going to switch my ISP back to Earthlink. Earthlink was the one company, I believe, that didn't give up to the gov't its internet search data from its customers. The only problem is they don't offer high-speed internet everywhere.
So, AT&T decides in their infinite wisdom to censor Pearl Jam's Eddie Vetter. "Reach Out and Censor Someone" should be AT&T's new slogan. It's time to hang up on AT&T.
Once again, never spend a penny on anything related to AT&T. Tell everyone you know to not spend a penny on anything related to AT&T. If your city, village, county, or state uses AT&T, rally people to change. If these people want rampant capitalism, then we can give it to them. At the same time, take all your money out of big banks, pay off all your debts, and free yourself from their chains.
NO MONEY FOR AT&T EVER
Corporations don't give a fuck about anything but money. They don't care about you. They don't care about me. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE LEGAL STATUS AS INDIVIDUALS!
Now, why can't we censor them? They 'own' the public airwaves and communication apparatus.
Please buy as little corporate stuff as possible.
"that they'll feed the pro-war webcast at full speed to their customers, while either shuttling Pearl Jam's political statements off to the slow lane."
Who cares if pro-war messages come at light speed and Pearl Jam's political statements come at the speed of carbon !4 radioactive decomposition. After five years of the Iraq debacle , if customers can't or won't seek and know the truth then they have been asleep somewhere in the subarban woods of New Amsterdam and never will.
How they will react when they all know the truth is a different matter.
What I do know is that French citizens are either derisively laughing at lazy and gullible Americans or shaking their heads in genuine sympathy .
Michael Moore analyzed the difference between the French and American political situation quite succinctly : French governments fear its citizens ; the opposite is true in the US
Emma,
Maybe it's being "filtered" by AT&T!
CBIND
i tried re-writing the post that won't publish but the new post hasn't published either.
the bottom line of what i originally wrote was addressed to:
bolwriter
there have been 100s of cases of censorship going on since 11 september 2001. this stuff is not new.
http://www.progressive.org/mccarthy
bolwriter,
The Progressive mag has documented 100s of cases of censorship and suppression of freedom of speech since 9-11 in their "McCarthysm Watch."
I was just there and it says they are updating their site and try again later.
Just yesterday I read a story about a man in OH is in legal trouble for placing an Impeach Bush sign in a public park in OH.
This also happened recently:
Flag charges dropped
Sheriff: Deputy shouldn't have been at scene
http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007708030306
This crap is and has been happening all over the nation since 9-11. Remember the Dixie Chicks? As for Pearl Jam, it was no mistake by ATT. I don't buy that for a moment.
Censorship=Dictatorship
Censorship is part of the Bush Dictatorship.
that worked but the post I wrote about this story won't publish. i tried 3 times and the system calls it a "duplicate post.
test.
my posts are not publishing here.
Those considering buying a iPhone might want to think twice. At the very least let Apple know their exclusive relationship with AT&T could cost them some business.
Such short memories we all have - censorship is the least of our mindboggling problems:
"EFF alleges that under the NSA domestic spying program, major telecommunications companies-and AT&T specifically-gave the NSA direct access to their vast databases of communications records, including information about whom their customers have phoned or emailed with in the past. EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to allowing the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, and gave the government unfettered access to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information -- one of the largest databases in the world."
canuckchuck,
GW is the classic spoiled little rich boy. Nothing that ever goes wrong is his fault. Anyway, Daddy's always there to buy him out of trouble, right? (This is also classic dry drunk behavior, if indeed GW is still even dry. It would be SO NICE if certain people could work out their personality problems in PRIVATE, with a nice SHRINK, without dragging the whole flippin' world into it.)
Thank Reagan for deregualtion and the hours we have to wait on the phone to get run around service from foriengners
Do you remeber the day when AT&T was a respectable company that gave good service at a reasonable price. Now they act like the scummiest of low brow companies giving poor service charging high prices, and acting like a goverment.
AT&T = Autocratic Tyrants & Tattletales
blowriter...sure.....and Bush said is was just a "mistake" to invade Iraq too...the "inadvertently" got bad intelligence...and he "acidentally" broke the FISA laws...and Gonzo "mistakenly" lied to congress....etc...etc...etc
I just finished up on the phone closing my account for my wireless service. Enough of us doing this and we'll see how these corporate nazis like their bottom line. I have Comcast as my isp. Thank God, so far, anyway. "We, the people," will take our country back, somehow! To truthteller, I feel for you, most of the folks I work with and know are so clueless that it makes you want to cry. Duh, can you spell frontal lobatomy?
bolwriter
I agree that the author should have made a better case for his point that AT&T deliberately censored Vetter. However since such evidence would have to involve internal company memos or something similar that is hard to get ahold of, should AT&T just be given the benefit of doubt and this telling incident ignored?
Obvously the censorship was intentional - to suggest otherwise wars against common sense. Was ANY right wing commentary ever censored by them? I find myself angered offended and frustrated by your absurd failure to apprehend the real dangers we face from the attempt to eliminate net neutrality. Do you think that AT&T doesn't see this as in their best interest? Do they not have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize their profits? Do they not have a political agenda?
Save benefit of the doubt for those who might actually have doubts because they have some semblance of morality. Corporations are required by law to put profits first not morals.
I can't provide transcripts proving Ducks like water but common sense tells me they do.
Steve Mickler
Solar Thermal/Electric (rocket)Propulsion enthusiast
First STEP
Wow, the AT&T apologists are out in force.
Who cares if its 'old news'? The point is to continually try to educate as many Americans as possible about corporate control of the media and the impacts it has on the information that citizens receive. And the destructive effects on the notion of democracy when citizens are blocked from receiving information. This is a point that must always be strongly made anytime it can be made. If a few more Americans learned something from this, that that's a gain for us. Keep making this point and keep hitting them every chance we get. The people who write this off as 'old news' or the 'article is about nothing' are arguing on AT&T side.
Who cares what corporate BS AT&T put out after they got caught? Do you really believe these people? So I don't give a rat's rear if AT&T says after the fact 'oh, we got caught so our line is that it was a mistake'. BULL! And oh, its just a coincidence that the 'mistakes' AT&T makes are always to censor political statements they don't agree with. I'd bet AT&T never censors a NASCAR webcast or the like that is very pro-war and pro-military.
And yes, this has everything to do with "net neutrality". AT&T and the other big corporate telecom firms want the right to decide which streams of information go through there systems quickly and easily and which get held up, slowed down or blocked. The current rules says everything should be treated equally. Thus if you are accessing the internet through AT&T, a Pearl Jam webcast critical of Bush and a pro-war webcast praising our great leader go equally through the system and you as a customer can chose to receive either and get the same performance in watching either.
What AT&T wants it the ability to say that they'll feed the pro-war webcast at full speed to their customers, while either shuttling Pearl Jam's political statements off to the slow lane. So as a customer what you'd see is perfect and fast reception of pro-war propaganda, while Pearl Jam would give you a constant message of "buffering 3% .... 4% ...... 5%". Of course that's their first position. It seems likely that they'd move after wards to Pearl Jam getting a message of "stream unavailable".
And as a customer, you really have very few choices. Basically there's only two. The phone company or the cable company. And Comcast isn't much (if any) better. In fact wasn't Comcast owned by AT&T at one point? Or were they thinking of buying them? Even if not, there's no more difference between Comcast deciding what political views you get to see and hear and AT&T deciding what political views you get to hear that there's a difference between the pro-corporate Democrats who support these telecoms aim to end net neutrality and the pro-corporate Republicans who support the telecoms aim to end net neutrality.
Read and watch out here and you constantly see references to how people only get their news from the Internet. AT&T and the other big telecoms want to put an end to that and get the internet under the same control that the other American media is under.
Goodbye Cingular and AT&T! That is undoubtedly censoring when you block an artist from criticizing a lying administration. It happened in Nazi Germany. Not another dime from me for this bullshit company. Any suggestions on good cell-phone companies?
Sorry Bolwriter. You just don't get it. The article is an unnecessary attempt to awaken people to the current state of censorship that exists and will continue to exist until some drastic changes take place.
The chances of that happening are 2 - slim & none, given the docile US citizenry.
It's a shame to let the cowardice of the public let the US Constitution and Bill of Rights be torn up and used as toilet paper.
Just called Comcast to switch my phone to them and away from AT&T. And I'm saving lots of money too!!
Sorry John, this article is about nothing. I don't like ATT any better than you do, but they said it was a mistake to have done this and that their only policy on censorship is on excessive profanity (which as we all know is required by FCC regulations. It shouldn't be, I know, but it is.). Your attempt to convert that into intentional censorship of political speech adduces zero evidence in its support. ATT may be lying. I wouldn't be surprised if they were, but your piece gives no evidence of that either. You're trying to create a scandal where there is none.
Eddie Vedder is MY president.
One really sad thing is that I work with people who don't have a problem with things like this!!! They also don't want to hear about or believe negative things about Bush and the corporatocracy. Yesterday, I tried to convince a co-worker I really don't know (mind you in an industrial, blue-collar environment) that Ohio was stolen in '04, that the terrorist threat is a ginned up lie to make people afraid, that we are in really deep trouble energy-wise, etc. Just dismissed me and the whole thing as nutty conspiracy theories. I move closer to dispair every day.
While we're on this subject, it is worth noting that Rupert Murdoch owns MySpace. Now, MySpace is currently used by many bands to get music out. If Murdoch gets aligned with AT&T on this, the selective transmission of creative content by bands, through MySpace, could become a real problem.
AT&T internet service has a partnership with Yahoo. Yahoo runs a discussion forum where users can pose questions and kick off a discussion. If one goes on the Yahoo forum, it is overwhelmingly right wing. This is achieved by including broad restricitions that apply to almost all users, and selectively enforcing the rules for left leaning participants.
For example, if anyone finds anything written alarming or disturbing, one can complain and that user can be barred from the site. In essence, if someone disagrees with you on anything, you can be barred if you are reported.
Magically, these AT&T-Yahoo discussion rules result in a multitude of virulent right wing shrillers on the boards. Magically. The only logical explanation is selective enforcement of the catch-all restrictions where right wing bulldogs are allowed to operate freely.
Then, of course, Murdoch has Fox News. That "news" service has more in common with the illegal activities of Michael Vick in rural Virginia than it does with journalism.
I think the solution to all this disenfranchisement will be some version of the National Initiative for Democracy kicked off by Mike Gravel of Alaska -- ni4d.org
Once the people reclaim the government, there will be no more shrilling on Fox News, no more censorship by AT&T-Yahoo. No threat to aspiring artists using MySpace.
This actually has very little to do with net neutrality directly, except as an indicator of the ethics of the decision-making that happens at AT&T.
It's a pretty strong indicator of the kind of behaviour they'd exhibit given the right to selectively enhance traffic, though, but I'd be much more concerned that it indicates that media companies feel it is now acceptable to openly censor political discourse, esp. in the context of art. Not just implicitly by deciding what gets discussed on public airwaves (i.e. via their control of the media agenda) but openly by selectively filtering out statements that the paymasters deem unacceptable.
They are gonna censor anyway. Can we say monopolistic inclinations? With administration blessings. Ma Bell is back and mad as hell.
That's an easy one. I'll just boycott At&t, sell my shares, default on their contract and encourage everyone to do the same.
ummm...okay. but we've got "net neutrality" now, and this is still going on?
Guys, who can we use instead of AT@T? I fucking hate Comcast and those fascists at Sprint ripped me off for a bundle 2 years ago. Is there anywhere we can go for internet, wireless and home services? Help.
I wonder why everyone is so up-in-arms about this. This isn't new.
The video manifesto from the VA Tech killer Seung-Hui Cho was cut to ribbons. Only the parts they wanted you to see were played. What about the rest of it? I doubt that the whole thing is public anywhere. If you are lucky enough to have seen the 'partial' you will discover that it is so sliced that it doesn't make any sense.
The cell-phone video of the Saddam Hussein lynching was edited as well on CNN and FOX.
This is all old news.