Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Congress Members Deliver Smackdown to Google and Verizon over Net Neutrality
Four Democratic congressmen have joined together to denounce a Google-Verizon proposal that they believe will spell the death of net neutrality. They've written to the head of the FCC, asking that he act soon, and not allow "two large communications companies with a vested interest in the outcome" to decide the Internet's future.
The congressmen are all on the House Energy and Commerce committee --- Ed Markey (D-MA), Mike Doyle (D-PA), Jay Inslee (D-WA), and Anna Eshoo (D-CA). Markey has a long-time interest in telecommunications issues, is the author of H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act and has long been a leading voice for net neutrality.
The Congressmen wrote the letter to Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the FCC. They're asking the FCC to act now to preserve net neutrality, and specifically criticize key points of the Google-Verizon proposal. (You can download the letter as a PDF here.)
As I've written in a previous blog, the Google-Verizon proposal would hasten the death of net neutrality in several ways. First is that the companies are asking that wireless service be excluded from net neutrality rules.
The congressmen, in no uncertain terms, disagree. They write:
"Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet requirements could widen the digital divide by establishing a substandard, less open experience for traditionally underserved regions and demographic groups that may more often need to access or choose to access the Internet on a mobile device. Moreover, such inconsistent principles could confuse consumers, who would have different and uneven experiences depending solely on the connection that their devices might use to reach the Internet. An Internet framework excluding wireless from important consumer safeguards could impede attainment of national broadband goals, while lessening the potential for wireless platforms to serve unserved and underserved areas."
The other part of the proposal that would help kill net neutrality is a vague broad loophole for "additional or differentiated services" or managed services that providers might want to offer. What are these managed services? No one seems to know.
The congressmen take dead aim at that as well. They warn that "Broad 'managed services' exceptions would swallow open Internet rules" and go on to say:
"An overbroad definition of the proposed 'managed services" category would sap the vitality and stunt the growth of the Internet...By undermining competition and the value of the open Internet, managed services could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprise."
The congressmen want the FCC to establish rules to guarantee that
there will be net neutrality and an open Internet. They take direct aim
at Google and Verizon, writing that:
"Rather than expansion upon a proposal by two large communications companies with a vested interest in the outcome, formal FCC action is needed."
Why are the congressmen asking the FCC to act, and to act now? Because they know that Congress won't act. As ars technica points out, "Congress has been quite direct in saying that it has no plans to act." That's because Republican are against a net neutrality proposal, and a number of Democrats are against it as well. So as a practical matter, there simply aren't enough votes to pass a net neutrality law.
So now it's up to the FCC. Will Google and Verizon be able to trump that agency? The answer will go a long way toward determining whether the Internet stays open or not.
19 Comments so far
Show AllU.S. Constitution, Artlicle 1 Section 8 mandates that the congress shall regulate commerce, ie business! Deregulation is unconstitutional. Google and Verizon should not be allowed to merge, creating a monopoly, enforce the Sherman Anti-Trust Act!
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
Hello stringbean,
Is that Sherman from Peabody's Improbable History?
The four congressmen who are "fighting" for net neutrality are actors in the theater of the absurd and are trying to convince their constituents that they really and truly have not been bought off by the corporations that run things in Washington DC.
Also, they better watch out because Barry is likely to invite them for a little plane ride on Air Force One and put pressure on them to recant. You know, kind of like he did to that other Democratic stalwart of the people Dennis Kucinich.
funny you should mention mr. kucinich..........whatever happened to him?
he's been marginalized....by MSM and..............the Democrats!
bastards...................
you're too kind!
and marginalized by himself for caving into voting for the health care giveaway bill to insurance companies.
I'm glad you said it so I didn't have to. Kucinich has marginalized himself. I guess I said it anyway.
The open internet was officially lost over two months ago though the story was largely censored from corporate mass media reporting.
Julius Genachowski, FCC head and Obama buddy, refused to implement a simple procedural maneuver back in May to reclassify the internet as a "telecommunications service" following an Appeals Court decision. He had the three votes needed (out of five) to maintain neutrality.
The simple reclassification (which could've been achieved in a day) would've protected the openness of the internet and returned it to the people. The case would've been closed.
Genachowski's refusal to even hold the vote told you EVERYTHING YOU NEEDED TO KNOW about his true INTENTIONS.
Instead of protecting neutrality Genachowski was leading a coup, planned and paid for by the ISP's, for control of the internet.
It should be noted that Genachowski openly opposed reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine prior to his nomination. To those following his appointment this was a clear and obvious warning signal that he would also oppose Internet Fairness.
A FCC head has as much power as a Supreme Court Justice or a Federal Reserve Chairman, and he just proved it. The open internet is history.
So why did progressives refuse to pay attention to Genachowski's nomination?
Good assessment.
Although i agree, Tom Joad (great name by the way), with your feelings on this matter, i am less cynical about the Democrats supporting net neutrality. The only one of the four that I'm familiar with is Markey, for whom i have alot of respect.
I recall when I first ever watched C-Span in the '80s Markey and Ron Dellums,currently mayor of Oakland, were on the floor every day, Markey with his genuine kennedyesque and Dellums with his genuine black mojo, fighting to block Reagan's war on Nicaragua. Since then, he has continually fought for progressive causes. I would have much preferred, if we had to have a candidate from Massachusetts (the only state by the way to go for McGovern in '72), I'd so much wished Markey instead of Kerrey. A great failure of the Massachusetts Democrats and the Obama Administration was choosing Martha instead of Markey to run for Senate. Another example of the DLC being a cancer on the Democratic Party.
So, back to net neutrality. The FCC have been selected by Obama and serve at his pleasure. How they come down on this will be another telling moment (like most of his horrific appointments).
Obama has taken the correct stand on the Muslim community center in New York City, despite a horrible lack of support from Democrats. Will he do so for net neutrality? If a man or woman will not stand for freedom of speech and freedom of speech (1st Amendment) what do they stand for?
"Moreover, such inconsistent principles could confuse consumers, "
Says it all. Everyone's a consumer. What happened to "citizens"?
they became 'consumers'...................
consuming factory farmed animals, genetically modified plants, chemical drugs and potions, sunscreens, toothpaste, shampoos, body lotions, makeup, cellutite removers, hair/skin dyes, plastic surgery, plasma televisions, karaoke machines, microwave ovens, waffle makers, coffee machines, alarm clocks, computers, cars, boats, electricity, gas, water, tobacco, alcohol, designer clothes, shoes, jewellry, greeting cards, xmas trees, furniture, cell phones, ipods, dvds, etc. etc.....................
the 'citizens' are now all equal to the items being churned out on the conveyor belt of consumerism............
yep, but they're blaming illegal immigrants for all their woes.
f@!!%*g bastards...............
that's better!
Woo hoo! Four Congressmen stand up for net neutrality.
Corporations (i.e. rich people) currently rule the usa, everything else you see is just a play in which two sides of rich people divide their audience so that they fight with each other. The Romans called this divide et impera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule).
Real change is happening here: www.thezeitgeistmovement.com