SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
House Reps Take Stand for Real Net Neutrality
Dec 17, 2010
As members of the Federal Communications Commission prepare for a vote on Net Neutrality next week, some of Congress' most Internet-savvy members say the rule before the agency doesn't fully safeguard consumers nor clear even the lowest bar for real Net Neutrality protections.
The group, led by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), sent a letter to all five FCC commissioners saying that the proposal outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski needs to be strengthened in order to get their full support.
Markey was joined on the letter by Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).
As so many in Congress take their cues from powerful phone and cable companies, it's refreshing to see several representatives go against the grain to take a principled stand on behalf of Internet users. The representatives are reportedly already taking heat from the phone and cable lobby for not falling into line to bless Genachowski's flawed compromise.
The letter says the rule must be improved to protect four core principles of Net Neutrality:
1. Nondiscrimination: It must ban "paid prioritization," which, according to the letter is "contrary to the Internet's fundamental nondiscrimination principles."
2. One Internet: It must protect both wired and wireless broadband access equally, they write. "Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet protections could stifle this growth [in broadband adoption]" and "could impede attainment of national broadband goals."
3. No loopholes: It must make "narrow" exceptions for so-called "managed services," which if not clearly delineated "could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprises."
4. A clear broadband definition: It must not allow Internet service providers to repackage the Internet as some other "specialized service," over which the FCC has no consumer protection authority. To allow ISPs to do this, according to the letter, would "[divide] the Internet into fast lanes and slow lanes where only the slow lands would be under FCC regulation."
That Genachowski's compromise order lacks these basic protections is strong indication that this chairman, who routinely speaks of his commitment to protect the open Internet, lacks any real conviction to cross swords with broadband carriers.
In their critique of Genachowski's draft order the House members join Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who wrote the FCC earlier in the week arguing that weak rules would give network operators the green light to abandon Net Neutrality protections and undermine the Internet's open architecture.
The FCC is slated to vote on Net Neutrality principles at its Dec. 21 meeting next week. Chairman Genachowski is now negotiating with commissioners to gain the three-vote majority he needs to pass the rule.
In the give-and-take among commissioners, the chairman has the ability to fix his rule to reflect a stronger Net Neutrality standard. Hopefully, he'll see the wisdom of matching his record with his rhetoric.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Tim Karr
Tim Karr is a senior director at Free Press, the U.S.-based organization that advocates for more just and democratic media.
As members of the Federal Communications Commission prepare for a vote on Net Neutrality next week, some of Congress' most Internet-savvy members say the rule before the agency doesn't fully safeguard consumers nor clear even the lowest bar for real Net Neutrality protections.
The group, led by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), sent a letter to all five FCC commissioners saying that the proposal outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski needs to be strengthened in order to get their full support.
Markey was joined on the letter by Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).
As so many in Congress take their cues from powerful phone and cable companies, it's refreshing to see several representatives go against the grain to take a principled stand on behalf of Internet users. The representatives are reportedly already taking heat from the phone and cable lobby for not falling into line to bless Genachowski's flawed compromise.
The letter says the rule must be improved to protect four core principles of Net Neutrality:
1. Nondiscrimination: It must ban "paid prioritization," which, according to the letter is "contrary to the Internet's fundamental nondiscrimination principles."
2. One Internet: It must protect both wired and wireless broadband access equally, they write. "Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet protections could stifle this growth [in broadband adoption]" and "could impede attainment of national broadband goals."
3. No loopholes: It must make "narrow" exceptions for so-called "managed services," which if not clearly delineated "could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprises."
4. A clear broadband definition: It must not allow Internet service providers to repackage the Internet as some other "specialized service," over which the FCC has no consumer protection authority. To allow ISPs to do this, according to the letter, would "[divide] the Internet into fast lanes and slow lanes where only the slow lands would be under FCC regulation."
That Genachowski's compromise order lacks these basic protections is strong indication that this chairman, who routinely speaks of his commitment to protect the open Internet, lacks any real conviction to cross swords with broadband carriers.
In their critique of Genachowski's draft order the House members join Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who wrote the FCC earlier in the week arguing that weak rules would give network operators the green light to abandon Net Neutrality protections and undermine the Internet's open architecture.
The FCC is slated to vote on Net Neutrality principles at its Dec. 21 meeting next week. Chairman Genachowski is now negotiating with commissioners to gain the three-vote majority he needs to pass the rule.
In the give-and-take among commissioners, the chairman has the ability to fix his rule to reflect a stronger Net Neutrality standard. Hopefully, he'll see the wisdom of matching his record with his rhetoric.
Tim Karr
Tim Karr is a senior director at Free Press, the U.S.-based organization that advocates for more just and democratic media.
As members of the Federal Communications Commission prepare for a vote on Net Neutrality next week, some of Congress' most Internet-savvy members say the rule before the agency doesn't fully safeguard consumers nor clear even the lowest bar for real Net Neutrality protections.
The group, led by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), sent a letter to all five FCC commissioners saying that the proposal outlined by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski needs to be strengthened in order to get their full support.
Markey was joined on the letter by Reps. John Lewis (D-Ga.), Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Mike Doyle (D-Penn.), and Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.).
As so many in Congress take their cues from powerful phone and cable companies, it's refreshing to see several representatives go against the grain to take a principled stand on behalf of Internet users. The representatives are reportedly already taking heat from the phone and cable lobby for not falling into line to bless Genachowski's flawed compromise.
The letter says the rule must be improved to protect four core principles of Net Neutrality:
1. Nondiscrimination: It must ban "paid prioritization," which, according to the letter is "contrary to the Internet's fundamental nondiscrimination principles."
2. One Internet: It must protect both wired and wireless broadband access equally, they write. "Exclusion of wireless services from open Internet protections could stifle this growth [in broadband adoption]" and "could impede attainment of national broadband goals."
3. No loopholes: It must make "narrow" exceptions for so-called "managed services," which if not clearly delineated "could have significantly negative consequences for consumers and commercial enterprises."
4. A clear broadband definition: It must not allow Internet service providers to repackage the Internet as some other "specialized service," over which the FCC has no consumer protection authority. To allow ISPs to do this, according to the letter, would "[divide] the Internet into fast lanes and slow lanes where only the slow lands would be under FCC regulation."
That Genachowski's compromise order lacks these basic protections is strong indication that this chairman, who routinely speaks of his commitment to protect the open Internet, lacks any real conviction to cross swords with broadband carriers.
In their critique of Genachowski's draft order the House members join Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who wrote the FCC earlier in the week arguing that weak rules would give network operators the green light to abandon Net Neutrality protections and undermine the Internet's open architecture.
The FCC is slated to vote on Net Neutrality principles at its Dec. 21 meeting next week. Chairman Genachowski is now negotiating with commissioners to gain the three-vote majority he needs to pass the rule.
In the give-and-take among commissioners, the chairman has the ability to fix his rule to reflect a stronger Net Neutrality standard. Hopefully, he'll see the wisdom of matching his record with his rhetoric.
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.