Dec 21, 2010
This Tuesday is an important day in the fight to save the Internet.
As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for
our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly
level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to
reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same
ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.
This principle is called "net neutrality" -- and it's under attack.
Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium
and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to
pay for it.
The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the
power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is
that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't
do that at all. They're worse than nothing.
That's why Tuesday is such an important day. The FCC will be meeting
to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members
understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply
unacceptable.
Although Chairman Genachowski's draft Order has not been made public,
early reports make clear that it falls far short of protecting net
neutrality.
For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas --
the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order
would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content,
applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.
Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to
shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For
instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your
phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator,
even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile
provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an
app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a
Tea Party group in your area).
It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed
discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step
backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid prioritization" (the
creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who can afford to pay for
it) is cause for concern.
It sure is -- but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead,
the draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions
on this kind of discrimination.
What's more, even the protections that are established in the draft
Order would be weak because it defines "broadband Internet access
service" too narrowly, making it easy for powerful corporations to get
around the rules.
Here's what's most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and
President Obama -- who nominated him -- have argued convincingly that
they support net neutrality.
But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder
if we've been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly
protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has
been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their
public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it.
No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that
his agency is supposed to regulate -- and no true advocate of a free and
open Internet should be seeking the permission of large media
conglomerates before issuing new rules.
After all, just look at Comcast -- this Internet monolith has
reportedly imposed a new, recurring fee on Level 3 Communications, the
company slated to be the primary online delivery provider for Netflix.
That's the same Netflix that represents Comcast's biggest competition in
video services.
Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited
only to Comcast's Video On Demand service. Imagine if a cable news
network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your
favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their
own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we
know it would cease to exist.
That's why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of
our time. And that's why, this Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss
this badly flawed proposal, I'll be watching. If they approve it as is,
I'll be outraged. And you should be, too.
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This Tuesday is an important day in the fight to save the Internet.
As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for
our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly
level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to
reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same
ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.
This principle is called "net neutrality" -- and it's under attack.
Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium
and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to
pay for it.
The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the
power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is
that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't
do that at all. They're worse than nothing.
That's why Tuesday is such an important day. The FCC will be meeting
to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members
understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply
unacceptable.
Although Chairman Genachowski's draft Order has not been made public,
early reports make clear that it falls far short of protecting net
neutrality.
For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas --
the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order
would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content,
applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.
Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to
shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For
instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your
phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator,
even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile
provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an
app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a
Tea Party group in your area).
It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed
discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step
backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid prioritization" (the
creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who can afford to pay for
it) is cause for concern.
It sure is -- but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead,
the draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions
on this kind of discrimination.
What's more, even the protections that are established in the draft
Order would be weak because it defines "broadband Internet access
service" too narrowly, making it easy for powerful corporations to get
around the rules.
Here's what's most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and
President Obama -- who nominated him -- have argued convincingly that
they support net neutrality.
But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder
if we've been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly
protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has
been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their
public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it.
No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that
his agency is supposed to regulate -- and no true advocate of a free and
open Internet should be seeking the permission of large media
conglomerates before issuing new rules.
After all, just look at Comcast -- this Internet monolith has
reportedly imposed a new, recurring fee on Level 3 Communications, the
company slated to be the primary online delivery provider for Netflix.
That's the same Netflix that represents Comcast's biggest competition in
video services.
Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited
only to Comcast's Video On Demand service. Imagine if a cable news
network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your
favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their
own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we
know it would cease to exist.
That's why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of
our time. And that's why, this Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss
this badly flawed proposal, I'll be watching. If they approve it as is,
I'll be outraged. And you should be, too.
This Tuesday is an important day in the fight to save the Internet.
As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for
our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly
level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to
reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same
ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate.
This principle is called "net neutrality" -- and it's under attack.
Internet service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium
and privileged access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to
pay for it.
The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the
power to issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is
that draft regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't
do that at all. They're worse than nothing.
That's why Tuesday is such an important day. The FCC will be meeting
to discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members
understand that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply
unacceptable.
Although Chairman Genachowski's draft Order has not been made public,
early reports make clear that it falls far short of protecting net
neutrality.
For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas --
the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order
would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content,
applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.
Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to
shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For
instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your
phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator,
even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile
provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an
app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a
Tea Party group in your area).
It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed
discrimination on the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step
backwards, merely stating that so-called "paid prioritization" (the
creation of a "fast lane" for big corporations who can afford to pay for
it) is cause for concern.
It sure is -- but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead,
the draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions
on this kind of discrimination.
What's more, even the protections that are established in the draft
Order would be weak because it defines "broadband Internet access
service" too narrowly, making it easy for powerful corporations to get
around the rules.
Here's what's most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and
President Obama -- who nominated him -- have argued convincingly that
they support net neutrality.
But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder
if we've been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly
protect net neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has
been calling the CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their
public endorsement of this draft proposal, which would destroy it.
No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that
his agency is supposed to regulate -- and no true advocate of a free and
open Internet should be seeking the permission of large media
conglomerates before issuing new rules.
After all, just look at Comcast -- this Internet monolith has
reportedly imposed a new, recurring fee on Level 3 Communications, the
company slated to be the primary online delivery provider for Netflix.
That's the same Netflix that represents Comcast's biggest competition in
video services.
Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited
only to Comcast's Video On Demand service. Imagine if a cable news
network could get its website to load faster on your computer than your
favorite local political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their
own agenda could decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we
know it would cease to exist.
That's why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of
our time. And that's why, this Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss
this badly flawed proposal, I'll be watching. If they approve it as is,
I'll be outraged. And you should be, too.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.