Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama FCC Expected to Abandon Net Neutrality, Universal Internet
On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the Federal Communications Commission is expected to abandon its pledges to protect Net Neutrality and to ensure universal, affordable broadband. The story cites anonymous insiders confirming that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is "leaning toward" siding with the most powerful phone and cable lobbyists on a crucial decision: whether the FCC will have any authority to protect an open Internet and make it available to all.
It is a testament to the phone and cable industry's overwhelming influence that they seem to have convinced the nation's communications agency to swear off authority to protect Americans' right to open communications. But it is stunning that Genachowski would even contemplate allowing it to stand, given President Obama's repeated pledge to ensure fast, affordable, universal Internet broadband for every American.
So what's going on here?
In early April, a a federal appeals court ruled that, based on decisions by the Bush-era FCC, the agency lacks the authority to regulate broadband providers. In so doing, the court effectively handed control of the Internet to companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon -- allowing them to slow down or block any website, any blog post, any tweet, any outreach by a congressional campaign. The FCC no longer has the power to stop them.
Fortunately, the FCC does have the power to easily fix the problem by "reclassifying" broadband under the law. All it would take is a vote by its five commissioners -- and Genachowski already has the votes. But so far, he has done nothing, while proponents of Net Neutrality (the principle that prevents providers from indiscriminately blocking or slowing Internet content) have been watching and waiting with bated breath.
If Genachowski gives up on restoring FCC authority, you can be sure he will claim that Internet deployment remains the signature issue of his FCC and that he can still accomplish the goals outlined in the FCC's recently released National Broadband Plan.
But unless the FCC puts broadband under what's called "Title II" of the Telecommunications Act, nearly every broadband-related decision the agency makes from here forward will be aggressively challenged in court, and the FCC will likely lose. The phone and cable companies know this, which is why they're going all out to keep the FCC from fixing the problem.
The goals of the much-feted National Broadband Plan are to ensure all Americans can get high-speed access to the open Internet -- not a closed version of the Internet that looks more like cable TV, where phone and cable companies decide what moves fast or not at all.
Chairman Genachowski could stand up for the American people, and against one of the biggest lobbying juggernauts in Washington, but it will take courage. If he fails to stand with the public, it could mean the end of the Internet as we know it.
Before it's too late, we need to make sure the FCC knows the American people are watching, and we will not sit quietly as the largest companies destroy the open, democratic Internet.- Posted in
48 Comments so far
Show AllBased on Obama's actions during his first 15 months in office, do you believe the Democratic Party is going to push for net neutrality and risk losing bribes from the telecom industry?
Will Congressman Ed Markey's(D-Mass.)bill HR 5353 that seeks to incorporate net neutrality principles provide a solution?
The important word in the Obama slogan "Yes We Can"
is WE....and the WE is the big buck donors.
Si Se Puede....My Ass
A democracy requires the free flow of information. People must be informed to vote effectively. That is why our Constitution contains protection for the free press. That was long ago when newspapers and leaflets were our main source of information. Now we have papers, magazines, radio, television and the internet. The print media and radio and television are controlled by the very wealthy people of the nation. We all know that the major media tell us all that the military industrial complex wants us to know. Television has become an especially effective means to control the emotions of the viewers. It is said that the more you watch Fox News the less you know.
At this moment we have the free flow of information on the internet. The key phase here is 'at this moment', because the Obama administration is going to give us even more change we can believe in. They are going to end this free flow of information. And "why?", you may ask. Well, to further the control of the people of this nation. We have been lied to for decades but there were some voices that said, "Wait a minute....that is not true."
What is ahead when the internet is for sale is the end of any hope of real democracy. And what are you going to do? My guess is nothing. Same as we do about the expanding wars and the torture, and the voter fraud, and the theft of our commons and our loss of privacy. Nothing.
Yes, it is only a matter of time before the internet has all the wonderful diversity of print media and TV. Sad.
There is one simple thing you must do. Don't vote for Democrats or Republicans.
Not to vote at all is better than to give some legitimacy to these two corporate organizations. Both houses of government are corrupt. We need to get rid of the 'honored members' who have their pockets full of corporate bribes.
After the illegal intervention by the Supreme Court, populated by Daddy Bush appointees, in 2000 in Florida, and when Gore refused to even protest, I knew it was all over. I decided right then to never, ever, vote for another Democrat or Republican. I will instead "waste" my vote on third party candidates. Face it, folks. Voting is a hopeless, fruitless sham, anyway.
When people tell me I am wasting my vote by voting third party, I tell them that they are wasting their vote by voting for Ds or Rs who will be gunning for the top 1% at our expense.
Here in Oregon we have closed primaries. I changed to the Green party recently, and when I got my ballot in the mail I saw that there are NO choices at all. I can't vote for anyone because there are no third party candidates running here. It's a shame because there are two democrats running for Governor ---one more progressive than the other, and I'd like to vote for the progressive candidate.
My conclusion is that your advice not to vote for anyone in the democratic party is self defeating. I would rather have some impact on the party, than none at all. I think I'll re-join the democratic party---until we open the primaries. At least I'd have some kind of a choice. Some impact is better than none at all.
There are primaries and there are general elections. In the primaries you vote for the candidates being put forward by the party in which you are registered. In your case, your party did not put forward any candidate. You could have put your name up, or worked within your party to find a candidate.
In the general election you do not need to vote for the party in which you are registered. You may vote for any candidate. It is at that time that I am urging you not to vote for either corporate party. You are mistaken to think that by voting you will have some impact on the party. The impact comes with a very large financial 'donation'.
If you want to help choose the lesser evil of the two candidates of any party in the primary, you need to register in that party. But in the general election don't vote corporate. There will be all sorts of nice words said in the campaign season to get you to forget your experience with the truth of campaign promises. Politicians have been know to be very clever at fooling us. Do you like the 'change' the Democrats have given us? Yeah, change for the worse, but is that what you want?
In the GENERAL election, don't vote Dum or Repuke.
There's a good chance that the democrat will win in the general election. Whether that democrat is a centrist is or a progressive is kind of important. If all progressives leave the party and don't vote for the better candidate in the primary, then we're stuck with the centrist. Labeling him "lesser evil" because he's in the democratic party is stupid. It's more important what his positions are on the issues.
If all progressives take your advise and refuse to vote for the democratic candidate in the general election, then we get a conservative republican. How's that better for anyone?
If all progressives left the dominant parties and voted for the better candidate in the general election, we'd have a Green Party candidate in office.
Exactly. How much progress have progressives made by voting for the lesser of evils for all these years?
I am a Green Party member in Oregon too. There are third party candidates running, but the Green Party chooses candidates by convention and not primary elections. I am not sure if this is by choice, or if third parties are not allowed to participate in the primary election system.
The Green Party in Oregon (Pacific Green Party) currently has candidates for 2 of our 5 congressional seats, and Ron Wyden's senate seat, and they are continuing to recruit candidates (http://www.pacificgreens.org/cat-campaigns/peace-slate).
I would also like to point out there are at least 4 Democrats running for governor, including former Governor Kitzhaber. While it's tempting to want to influence the Democratic Party, they've so completeless lost my trust, I don't care who they pick. They've already narrowed it down to 4 for you, using whatever inside deal making system the dominant parties use.
The shame is the effective exclusion of third parties from participation in the system, which both dominant parties support. The Green Party needs warm bodies with voter registration marked Green, because what little ballot access they have is preserved by a minimum number of members.
I think you just gave the dominant parties motivation to continue keeping the primaries closed. They know they've got you trapped, and they like it that way. I'm mad as hell about it, and I refuse to be extorted into voting for a candiate I don't want.
I'll be voting Green in November, or writing in Ralph Nader for every office without a third party candiate on the ballot. I demand to be counted.
No one who posts on this forum should be surprised that the openness and freedom of expression provided by sites like CD would last. While we all know that these comments aren't going to effect change on national policies they do give us a sense that there are others out there who see through the bullshit foisted on the populace by the corporate stooges in the MSM.
For now, let's revel in our collective wisdom. When they drop the boom and the lights go out here and in our culture this time and this place will be our camelot...remembered fondly and sadly, perhaps to become mythic...disbelieved by future generations...swirling down the memory hole...
If 20 million of us marched on Washington, then maybe the memory hole could be reserved for something less lofty.
Please everybody, don't give up so easily. I have a question for anyone who knows more about the issue and how broadband works than myself:
Since the "last mile" is provided by your local ISPs (for me I only have the choice between Comcast and Verizon for high-speed internet), that seems like a natural monopoly and should be regulated as a utility. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these companies bound to local contracts that cities and counties enter into with them? Isn't this why we don't have hundreds of cables snaking through our neighborhoods competing with each other to be our ISP? So can we fight this on the local level? In other words, have these local contracts stipulate that the ISP must abide by said "net neutrality" regulations? My county is very progressive and I think it could pass here, maybe if many others did the same it would have an impact.
Internet routing architecture is a complex and evolving issue. Their is no singular control mechanism, but that doesn't exclude some critical determinants in the Internet's large-scale handling and transmission of data.
WARNING: Geeky technical stuff follows. Non-geeks skip to bottom line.
In the traditional Internet structure, there was a hierarchy of gateways reflecting the history of the Internet which was built upon the existing ARPANET. When the Internet was created, the ARPANET was the backbone of the network: a central delivery medium to carry long-distance traffic. That central system was called the core, and the centrally managed gateways that interconnected it were called the core gateways. But the major weakness of that hierarchical model, of course, was the need for every route to be processed by the core.
The newer routing model is based on coequal collections of autonomous systems, called routing domains. Routing domains exchange routing information with other domains using Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) or EGP. Each routing domain processes the information it receives from other domains. Unlike the hierarchical model, this model does not depend on a single core system to choose the "best" routes. Each routing domain does this processing for itself; therefore, this model is more expandable. It can be represented as intersecting circles with each circle considered as a routing domain. The overlapping areas are border areas, where routing information is shared. The domains share information, but do not rely on any one system to provide all routing information.
Bottom line: Routing information and its cooperative sharing is a critical control factor. The "last mile" and your local gateway are strategically insignificant in that larger context.
REF: Cisco Systems - Internet Routing Architectures
http://www.ciscopress.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=1562056522
__
P.S.: The U.S. controls the global Internet's addressing system, much to the chagrin of other nations, especially when its flagrant unilateral abrogation of other treaties and international agreements is considered. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4441544.stm
P.P.S.: Better keep a close watch on your "very progressive" country. In American eyes, it's an extremely thin line between progressivism and terrorism.
Thank you for that very clear explanation. Many of the people who understand tech are unable (or unwilling) to express it in a simple, clear & understandable manner.
You're very welcome. In fact, I have no academically recognized expertise; only my own exploratory interest in the subject. Hope it helps a little bit.
I sometimes wonder about the true depth of knowledge by "experts" who can't or won't explain their allegedly superior understanding in a straightforward manner.
You tech explanation was fine, however, earlier poster was likely talking about LEGAL issues - specifically common-carrier law for which, if it is DSL service, the last mile is a common carrier phone line operated by the ISP (as it is with the copper pair of wires owned by Verizon that enter my house), then it seems to be that if Verizon tries to reguate content, they are violating their legal obligation to provide common carrier service to my home.
I assume that the beggest reason of all that Verizon is pushing FIOS may be to get around this legal restriction.
Yes, I see your point. My response was influenced by the OP's apparent interest in more info on the Internet ("broadband") itself.
I suppose some of the legal issues would depend largely on arguments about what constitutes "regulating content" by Verizon or anyone else involved. They already have multiple Internet service ("speed") levels. Are so-called "common carriers" prohibited from providing preferred treatment and facilities based on their rate structures and other "competitive" factors?
If so, it still doesn't seem apparent that any of their "last mile" facilities would be doing any "discriminatory" transmission; just passing along the raw data that they get and that may be preferentially handled and routed elsewhere in the global network system.
I see your points.
Common-carrier public utilities (like ordinary telephone or electricity distribution) can always provide discounts to volume or preferred customers in their rate ("tariff") schedules, but the schedules msut be approved by the states Public Utility Comission, so any proposal for prohibitive levels of favorable treatment gets disapproved.
You last paragraph is certainly a good argument that Verizon's lawyers would use.
Verizon right now is already pissing me off through its supposed spam e-mail blocking policies by which they unilaterally block lots of ligitimate e-mail with absolutely no recourse or appeal. Sometimes it seems suspiciously ideological. For example they block all e-mail from the domains of the 25 year-old respected leftist Z Magazine and Z-net, and until recently, from Al Jazeera. You can file a whitelist request, but Verizon says up-front that they ressrve the right to ignore your request for any reason or no reason. Their capitalist arrogance is brethtaking and vile. But what are my alternatives? Comcast. That's it.
I dream of the distant day when we nationalize them all. If the CEO's and their lackeys resist, we shoot them.
but they would probably say that a corporation is a person and we are violating their civil rights if nay restrictions are put on them
A thing to keep in mind is the talk "The Future of Palestine: Righteous Jews vs. the New Afrikaners"
By Professor John J. Mearsheimer
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25362.htm
[...]
For starters, the discrimination and repression that is the essence of apartheid will be increasingly visible to people all around the world. Israel and its supporters have been able to do a good job of keeping the mainstream media in the United States from telling the truth about what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories. But the Internet is a game changer. It not only makes it easy for the opponents of apartheid to get the real story out to the world, but it also allows Americans to learn the story that the New York Times and the Washington Post have been hiding from them. Over time, this situation may even force these two media institutions to cover the story more accurately themselves.
[...]
I would say that this could be one of the most important devices to stiffle the public right to know about anything Governments and corporations are doing if the Obama cronies fail the people.
There is something antecedent to all this that's bothering me. Genachowski's appointment was praised by the likes of Silver and Free Press. Seems more like same old same old. There's a Washington "logic" that Free Press has bought into and it has become a mere lobbying group.
This is far from what I envisioned when I attended the first three media reform conferences in Madison, St. Louis and Memphis. By Memphis, I began to sense that the conferences weren't about starting a movement for media reform and change. They were becoming platforms for lefty groups/commentators/critics. I often sat in the audience thinking I could have said it much better (I am communication studies academic). FP also started inviting a lot of celebrity types to these conferences who didn't have much to say.
I daresay that if FP had generated a movement (with local chapters to pressure local media and to spread the word generally) they would have a much stronger base to challenge Genachowski. Of course that might upset Genachowski and the White House (think Rahm's retarded remark about progressives) and cut off FP's precious "access." Lotta good it did to have it in the first place...
Bottom line is that Silver's piece on Genachowski and the FCC rings hollow--but I bet it will help him raise funds!
FREE PRESS--Just another gate-keeper!
FREEREPUBLICRUSHLIMBAUGHTOWNHALLFOXNEWSMAXDRUDGEREPORTAMERICANENTERPRIZEINSTITUTENRA
.........c..........o...........m..........m...........o...........n..............d...........r...........e...........a.............m..................................
what's this supposed to mean?
It is supposed to illustrate that under the corporate controlled net, the right wing "news" sites will load lightning fast, while Commondreams and left sites would load so slow it would time out.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks.
I would wager that Fluffy Post and Daily Hoax will be given the fast last for moronic party apologists while great sites such as this one won't. It's time to take to the streets assuming that we can get a majority to back us CDers.
The FCC is useless. Repealing the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and restoring the Fairness Doctrine is what needs to be done. Repealing TCA would give more breathing room and growth back to smaller phone companies while restoring the Fairness Doctrine would stop rightwingers from Rush Limbaugh from attaining special speaking privileges he doesn't deserve.
We are living in the "Golden Days" of the internet.
In a decade people will recall with great fondness when you could visit any website you desired without interference or fee.
*** This comment deleted by Comcast ***
Access to CommonDreams is restricted to 3:15am to 3:25am.
You will now be redirected to FoxNews.com.
That was really funny. :)
Seriously though, we'll still be here 10 years from now. CD isn't a threat to Comcast.
Question for CD posters:
Can you get to the following link of Press TV, an Iranian newsite in English?
http://www.presstv.ir/
When I am using Verizon as my internet server, I have no problem going to the website; however, when I am at Starbucks using AT&T for the internet, the server for the site is blocked and I can't get to the site to read news. I suspect AT&T is blocking the site; but would like more feedback. It is a good site for news.
I troubleshooted the problem you had by asking my neighbor who uses AT&T as their dialup provider to check it out. He was able to get in just fine. The problem is probably Starbucks who privately set up their barriers. AT&T is one rogue of a Big Telco but not on this one. They wouldn't ban such access because if they did, they might not be able to collect data on who visited their sites unless they kept logs of who attempted to access sites on their banned list. I hope this helps.
Yeah, it makes more sense it is Starbucks, but I didn't realize they had the ability to set up barriers.
Options: ( in worst case scenario)
Paul Revere did a lot with just a voice, his horse and that lantern.
If this passes, then we, the non-wealthy-elite, people will find another way. Of course, Paul's ride worked because he knew everybody, and that was a real grassroot movement. I know that there was another man riding too, but history seems to have erased him for the rich silversmith.( who knows this man's name?)
Semaphore ( flags or light) from location to location with a town crier.
Maybe we could get the Navajo code talkers to give us some hints for going on the "approved sites" and using code language.
Twitter would have to morph into Sqawker, with more than 140 characters.
People could use code phrases from the Bible to translate and carry the real news. Even better, set up a shopping club website, "We love Walmart , or something odious like that, and use sale items in code to what and where the real news is.
I suppose that this may sound silly, but after the financial debacle/theft, and the environmental theft, and the Supreme Court theft, plus the war that won't die debacle, then maybe we have to wonder if "basic" is the best way to go.
No matter what tyrants and despots do, they can't stop people from thinking and sharing. I just reread, Fahrenheit 451 ; there is always a "way."
I've been expecting this confrontation for many years.
There should be an absolute separation between Carrier and Content.
Consider this comparison: I have a Verizon phone line and I want to call a friend who has another Carrier, and either my Carrier or his does not like what we are talking about and they interrupt our conversation.
What gave TPC (Remember the Movie yet? "The President's Analyst.") that right?
Consider this: I have a Verizon phone line and I phone another friend who has a Verizon phone line, and Verizon doesn't like what we are talking about.
It is one thing when the NSA is merely listening in (unconstitutionally). It is quite another thing when your PRIVATE Carrier can alter the flow of communication BECAUSE IT IS PRIVATE! "Excuse me, but your cell phone is breaking up."
"Chairman Genachowski..." Really, who is this Obama appointee?
Anyone who wants to TIER the Internet is an Idiot. And I use the term in the Pejorative. America and the world needs a Common Carrier.
-30-
Great post OleManRiver!
Dead-balls-right-on. What this really is is Double-Secret-Internet-Deregulation. Guaranteed to destroy all but the monopolies.
The day after that crumby court decision came down, I was banned from accessing CD by those phucking telecom companies. A message pops up saying: your IP xxxxxxx is banned. I'm out here in Asia, and I don't know where the blocking is taking place, just that somebody in this corp/gov can't stand any constructive criticism from it's citizens.
Well I say: "Phuck em'".
Are we living in North Korea yet? It's getting closer and closer to that every day.
Now I am waaayyy slowed down because I have to run everything through a proxy server. If you use a proxy server guys, like www.freeanonymousproxy.org, be sure to uncheck the box at the bottom that disables "client-side-scripting" or else you can't see or post comments. I think we're all going to have to resort to using something like the freenet or the darknet the way this is going. It's five times bigger than the world wide web, and it's older and completely anonymous. Wikileaks is on the ropes right now for releasing that video of the helicopter hosing Rueter's photographer, but I've heard through the grapevine, that now there's going to be a whole bunch of wikileak type sites.
Hopefully, the world-wide hackers will rebel at this recent telecom outrage, and figure out ways to defeat it. Maybe we can just leave the World-Wide-Web altogether like we did TV and make our own internet. Most PC's are now easy to convert to servers. We would probably have to give up rich content like video and audio for a while, but this "citizen net" would be owned by us and we could bann all big companies and only alow local advertising by mom and pop shops.
Here is Freenet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
It seems a little complicated but I think I'll give it a go this week.
Don't give up the fight for Freedom guys!
TJ
"The day after that crumby court decision came down, I was banned from accessing CD by those phucking telecom companies. A message pops up saying: your IP xxxxxxx is banned."
No telephone company that I am aware of has added CD to their same targeting lists as they have bit torrents. Any internet provider can theoretically make a site hard to access but unlike certain governments, they won't ban it outright. CD does have its policies on conduct on this site. Whoever was using that IP address before probably caused trouble on CD and was punished by the administrators for abuse or spamming.
"Maybe we can just leave the World-Wide-Web altogether like we did TV and make our own internet. Most PC's are now easy to convert to servers. We would probably have to give up rich content like video and audio for a while, but this "citizen net" would be owned by us and we could bann all big companies and only alow local advertising by mom and pop shops. "
That is a great idea and in fact that is what used to happen until the Telecommunications Act of 1996 kicked in. I don't know about other countries but in the US, that act and the Patriot Act need to be abolished and the Fairness Doctrine that was repealed in the 1980s needs to be restored. At least if that's done, setting up smaller internet providers can be a cinch.
Hi Stanley,
Most bans I've heard about are from the ISP directed by somebody bigger: like the telecoms, who already are making plans to slow down bit torrent and low-income sites in favor of pay-to-play corporate traffic. Retroactive Telecom immunity means no fear in restricting objectionable content. I'm sure I could find out who banned my IP, but the most likely suspect in my mind is the gatekeeper of international traffic requested by an overbearing out-of-control federal government.
Other IP's from here have no trouble logging on to CD. CD has not banned my account, as you can see. The message appears to be a local telecom (US-owned) generated message since the HTML is completely absent in source view (my guesses only).
Fear of free speech is the fever the federal government is now suffering from, imho.
We need to cut the Federal Budget down by 90 percent and just start over, the malaise and corruption is so acute. (Whoops, that legal comment is going to get me banned again! Be Afraid! Be Afraid of the great Wizzard of telecom Oz! Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!)
TJ - out
TJ, understood and I don't think that you will get into trouble on your last point. History has always had cases of government abusing its power against the citizens and the bigger it would get the bigger the abuse. The case of the US is obviously unique because never before has there been such a populist fervor for smaller government only to see government getting bigger and never before have we seen the most toxic mix of government and corporations of all fields and professions. If anything, I would suggest that you keep up that self confidence and stay courageous. It is from there that more people will have to follow and cooperate. The bigger a team we have to fight for democracy, the better our chances of taming both the corporate and governmental beasts. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing when they went all out to avoid a one-man rule as much as possible. It takes a lot of sinister planning and cooperation to turn a representative democracy into a dictatorship. I don't know about other nations but it has been mentioned by articles and posters here that there are a lot of puppet regimes aiding in this disaster so uniting and awakening the masses in those nations to fight their puppet leaders is also a must.
Olemanriver, I work as a telephone operator, usually in the evening and night time hours as per my one year contract. While I do not work for the controversial companies, I can assure you that in the case of phone lines breaking up, that disturbance is not because Verizon personally hates someone's point of view but instead due to lack of maintenance on the part of the infrastructure. Keep in mind that nearly all telephone and cable companies just want your money and they will not use that money wisely to maintain and repair as is needed. The money instead gets misused for helping government spy on people they deem as "threats". If the money had been wisely used to maintain those copper wires, FIOS would most likely have been a hard sell by now. Think of the telephone companies as private middlemen doing the government's job of keeping us citizens in the dark. I miss the good old days of working in smaller telephone companies which used to be abundant until the Telecom Act of 1996 kicked in at its worst starting a few years later. The FCC is useless. The real solution is to restore the Fairness Doctrine and abolish the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and the Patriot Act.
There is no way of destroying dishonesty other than to destroy its source. Take the White House out! Obliterate the USA. US citizens do not need it other than to lay claim to the name and the world does not need it at all.
The important word in the Obama slogan "Yes We Can"
is WE....and the WE is the big buck donors.
Si Se Puede....My Ass