With continued inaction at the Federal Communications Commission, some stakeholders in the Net Neutrality debate continue to file comments with the Commission trying to find a “third way” to bring about guarantees for online free speech and access while softening opposition to “network management” technology that allows providers to manipulate broadband traffic.

Among such filers is the Communications Workers of America, which seeks a “middle-ground approach” to protecting a free and open Internet.

The CWA has always maintained its feet in two camps — with consumers looking for improved broadband and with the communications companies that employee large numbers of the union’s members, who will build out those networks and provide service.

The union shares our annoyance with FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski for his complete inaction on broadband policy thus far.  In short, the Commission keeps stalling from taking direct action to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, restoring its ability to oversee broadband policy lost in a federal appeals court decision earlier this year.

The CWA used a piece by David Honig from the Minority Media and Telecommunications Council (MMTC) to echo its own position:

MMTC isn’t alone in being frustrated with the FCC’s disappointing attitude toward real action this past year. In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski expressed impatience with the glacial pace of policymaking at his Commission. Although he mentioned that the FCC, under his direction, has implemented some notable reforms, he conceded that “there is still a lot to do.”

Unfortunately, regardless of how earnest the Chairman is in his desire to move forward with the business of policymaking, his actions speak much louder than his words. Indeed, his yearlong pursuit of network neutrality rules — first via a traditional rulemaking proceeding and, most recently, via an effort to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service — has cast a long and almost suffocating pall over many of the items that the Chairman wishes to act upon. His inaction on civil rights issues — especially EEO enforcement — is just one example of how paralyzed the agency has become.

Recent news that Congress will not move forward to address the regulatory questions that currently vex the Commission (e.g., whether the FCC has authority to regulate broadband service providers) could embolden the Chairman to adopt the sweeping regulatory changes for broadband that he proposed earlier this year. Doing so in the absence of Congressional action would only invite immediate legal challenges that would mire the FCC in litigation, appeals, and remands for years to come.

To put it plainly, the FCC is stuck. Although it recently adopted some promising orders related to broadband (e.g., new rules for accessing new portions of wireless spectrum called “white spaces” and for enhancing access in schools and libraries), the Commission has failed to move forward with implementing core provisions of its monumental National Broadband Plan.

The union last week also submitted its latest round of comments requested by the Commission, this time to broaden its position on a proposed compromise.  We’ve delineated which of the proposals we believe are primarily pro-consumer (in green), pro-provider (red), and which fall straight down the middle (blue):

• First, wireline broadband Internet access providers (“broadband providers”) should not block lawful content, applications, or services, or prohibit the use of non-harmful devices on the Internet.
• Second, wireline and wireless broadband providers should be transparent regarding price, performance (including reporting actual speed) and network management practices.
• Third wireline broadband providers should not engage in unjust or unreasonable discrimination in transmitting lawful traffic.
• Fourth, broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks through appropriate and tailored mechanisms, recognizing the technical and operational characteristics of the broadband Internet access platform.
• Fifth, the Commission should take a case-by-case adjudication approach to protect an open Internet rather than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules.

The first and third principles are strongly pro-consumer, although as we’ve seen, providers have a tendency to want to define for themselves what is “harmful,” “unjust,” or “unreasonable” and impose it on their customers.  We’ve seen provider-backed front groups argue that the concept of Net Neutrality itself is all three of these things.  Any rules must be clearly defined by the Commission, not left to open interpretation by providers.

The second principle cuts right down the middle.  Consumers deserve an honest representation of broadband speeds marketed by providers (not the usual over-optimistic speeds promised in marketing materials), and transparency in price — especially with gotchas like term contracts, early cancellation penalties, overlimit fees, etc.  But providers can also go to town with abusive network management they’ll market as advantageous and fair, even when it is neither.  Just ask customers of Clear who recently found their “unlimited” wireless broadband service, marketed as having no speed throttles, reduced in speed to barely above dial-up when they used the service “too much.”  Clear says the speed throttles are good news and represent fairness.  Customers think otherwise, and disclosure has been lacking.

The fourth and fifth principles benefit providers enormously.  Network management itself is neither benevolent or malicious.  The people who set the parameters for that management are a different story.  A traffic-agnostic engineer might use such technology to improve the quality of services like streamed video and Voice Over IP by helping to keep the packets carrying such traffic running smoothly, without noticeably reducing speeds and quality of service for other users on that network.  There is nothing wrong with these kinds of practices. There is also nothing wrong with providing on-demand speed boosts on a pay-per-use basis, so long as the network is not oversubscribed.

But since providers are spending less to upgrade their networks, providers may seek to exploit these technologies in a more malicious way — too stall needed upgrades and save money by delivering a throttled broadband experience for some or all of their customers.  If customers can be effectively punished for using high bandwidth applications, they’ll reduce their usage of them as well.  That’s good for providers but not for customers who are paying increasing broadband bills for a declining level of service.

Some examples:

• Customers using high bandwidth peer-to-peer applications can have their speeds throttled, sometimes dramatically, when using those applications;
• Internet Overcharging schemes like usage caps, overlimit fees, and “fair access” policies can discourage consumers from using services like online video, file transfer services, and new multimedia-rich online gaming platforms like OnLive, which can consume considerable bandwidth;
• Preferred content can be “network managed” to arrive at the fastest possible speeds, at the cost of other traffic which consequently must be reduced in speed, meaning your non-preferred traffic travels on the slow lane;
• Providers can redefine levels of broadband service based on intended use, relegating existing packages to “web browsing and e-mail” while marketing new, extra-cost add-ons for services that take the speed controls off services like file transfer and online video, or changes usage limits.

The CWA runs the Speed Matters website, promoting broadband improvements.

It is remarkable the CWA seeks to allow today’s indecisive Commission to individually adjudicate specific disputes, instead of simply laying down some clear principles that would not leave a host of loopholes open for providers to exploit.

Big players like Comcast, AT&T, and Verizon have plenty of money at their disposal to attract and influence friends in high places.  If the Commission thought Big Telecom’s friends in Congress were breathing down its neck about telecom policy now, imagine the load it will be forced to carry when these companies seek to test the Commission’s resolve.

Opponents of Net Neutrality claim broadband reclassification will leave providers saddled with Ma Bell-era regulation.  But in truth, the FCC can make their rules plain and simple.  Here are a few of our own proposals:

1. Network management must be content-agnostic.  “Preferred partner” content must travel with the same priority as “non-preferred content;”
2. Providers can use network management to ensure best possible results for customers, but not at the expense of other users with speed throttles and other overcharging schemes;
3. Providers can market and develop new products that deliver enhanced speed services on-demand, but not if those products require a reduction in the level of service provided to other customers;
4. Customers should have the right to opt out of network management or at least participate in deciding what traffic they choose to prioritize;
5. Providers may not block or impede legal content of any kind;

In short, nobody objects to providers developing innovative new applications and services, but they must be willing to commit to necessary upgrades to broaden the pipeline on which they wish to deliver these services.  Otherwise, providers will simply make room for these enhanced revenue services at your expense, by forcing a reduction in your usage or reducing the speed and quality of service to make room for their premium offerings.

The industry itself illustrates this can be done using today’s technology.

The cable industry managed to accomplish benevolent network management with products like “Speed Boost” which delivers enhanced, short bursts of speed to broadband customers based on the current demand on the network.  Those speed enhancements depend entirely on network capacity and do not harm other users’ speeds.

Groups like the CWA need to remember that compromise only works if the terms and conditions are laid out as specifically as possible.  Otherwise, the player with the deepest pockets and closest relationships in Washington will be able to define the terms of the compromise as they see fit.

And that’s no compromise at all.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/CWA Larry Cohen on the Open Internet Jobs and the Digital Divide 9-14-10.flv[/flv]

Communications Workers of America president Larry Cohen outlined the union’s position on Net Neutrality before the Congressional Black Caucus Institute on Sept. 14, 2010.  (2 minutes)

Big Telecom Cash works its magic

As the fall elections near, the rhetoric and sheer nonsense from those opposed to important consumer broadband reforms has reached a fever pitch.  And as our reader Karen writes, too many Americans and the candidates they support just don’t get it.

Here in Delaware, Tea Party candidate Christine O’Donnell exemplifies what Net Neutrality supporters are up against — complete ignorance and big cash contributions.  Before she went into hiding, I attended one of Christine’s rare public events and asked her about where she stood on Net Neutrality and her response was she believed “all sides should be represented on the Internet.”  So she thinks Net Neutrality is about views expressed online, not stopping the telecom industry from slowing or blocking access to websites.

At least 35 of the Tea Party groups are opposed to Net Neutrality, mostly because their financial backers (big corporations and billionaire-funded front groups) have convinced members they should be.  Many others are stupid enough to believe Glenn Beck and his pal Phil Kerpen at Americans for Prosperity who say Net Neutrality will “censor” the Internet or turn control of it over to Barack Obama.

Conservative groups heavily funded by corporate interests they refuse to identify are backing various chapters of so-called “Tea Party” groups and feeding them talking points generated by companies like AT&T and Verizon in opposition to Net Neutrality.  The Center for Individual Freedom runs a website StopNetRegulation, edited by conservative activist Seton Motley, dedicated to derailing broadband reforms.  Motley was also quoted in The Hill in late September warning Republicans about antagonizing Tea Party types with their support for Net Neutrality in Congress.  Only then his comments came as leader of the group “Less Government.”  Judging from the organization’s website, Motley is also in favor of reduced size websites because his amounts to a single sentence.

Seton is convinced the end of the net world, as we know it, comes November 30th when the government could “seize control of the Internet.” That’s the date of the FCC’s November meeting, at which Seton suspects Julius Genachowski will finally move to reclassify broadband as a telecommunication service. 

Seton completely misrepresents reclassification as saddling the Internet with “the same rules as landline telephones.”  I read that claim somewhere before… oh yes, straight from AT&T and Verizon lobbyist talking points.

It doesn’t matter to Seton and other conservatives that Genachowski went out of his way to say he would not be applying any onerous telephone-era regulations on today’s broadband providers.  In fact, Genachowski’s actions to date have moved at such a glacial pace, friends have to occasionally check his pulse to make sure he’s still with us.

So what is so big, bad, and scary about Net Neutrality?  It simply guarantees your Internet Service Provider doesn’t start throttling your speeds when accessing websites and Internet applications they dislike, cannot block access to websites critical of their agenda, and are not allowed to extort payments from content providers just to allow traffic onto “their” networks.

While that may pose a Halloween freak-out for the profit-obsessed phone and cable companies, it’s hard to find actual consumers (not paid by said providers) who want their Internet service blocked or slowed down.

Seton goes way over the top turning this into a First Amendment free speech issue.  That argument only works for the likes of AT&T and Verizon who find their corporate right to overcharge people for broadband being infringed.

Seton then argues his view must be right because even minority groups support his position.  As readers here already know, most of the groups he names to bolster his argument are “dollar-a-holler” organizations willing to peddle the phone and cable company agenda on their letterhead in return for donation checks.

So have many additional normally Democrat paragons, including several large unions: AFL-CIO, Communications Workers of America (CWA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW); several racial grievance groups: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Minority Media and Telecom Council (MMTC), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Urban League; and an anti-free market environmentalist group: the Sierra Club.

If you ever wondered why AT&T and Verizon spend so much on contributions to these interest groups, Seton Motley just handed you the answer — so he and the companies he supports could name drop them in arguments against pro-consumer broadband reform.  And considering the CWA and IBEW represent phone company workers, it’s not a surprise to see them on their side of this issue either.  Wherever you look amongst those in opposition to Net Neutrality, a check from AT&T and/or Verizon is almost always waiting to be deposited.

The Obama-Has-Concentration-Camps-crowd parked on Andrew Breitbart’s website ate it up and wrote comments like this:

The communist can’t control the people with a internet that is out of control, all dictatorships have the power over what the people can read, free thinkers in this day and age are considered terrorist, Republicans, conservatives, anti abortionist, Oath Keepers, Christians, ex military, people who think the Constitution is still the law of the land, my lord, the communist can’t have these sorts communicating with each other over the internet, why, they may all come together one day and put a stop to the one world government goal, you know, the goal of making the world one big slave camp.

This kind of wild opposition has even corporate Republicans on edge, according to The Hill.  A major talking point of Net Neutrality opposition is that such “sweeping changes” should not be enforced by the FCC, but from legislation enacted in Congress.  But because Tea Party elements are opposed to the concept altogether, and Republicans are loathe to hand Democrats their votes on much of anything, even a corporate-friendly Net Neutrality bill introduced by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) went up in flames.  Waxman’s bill would have enacted some protections, but only until 2012, at which point it was open season on broadband consumers.

The Hill piece delivered a disappointing fact of life for much of today’s Congress, beholden first to corporate interests (underlining ours):

In a striking sign that people who normally align themselves with telecommunications companies may line up behind the bill if it is industry-backed, ardent net-neutrality critic Brett Glass, founder of a wireless company, is open to it. He tweeted on Monday, in a note to Americans for Prosperity executive Phil Kerpen, that the Waxman legislation seems “more reasonable than I expected.”

In a note earlier this month, analysts at Stifel Nicolaus wrote that although Republican House members “may not have incentive to solve a political problem for Democrats,” some may support the bill “if there’s a push by” phone and cable companies and at least some Internet companies.

But the shilling for Big Telecom has never been a one-party-problem.  While Republicans appear to be moving in lock step against Net Neutrality, a number of groups and politicians on the Democratic left have also been only too willing to take AT&T money and run to a microphone to oppose a free and open Internet.

The Los Angeles Times gave plenty of space on an issue we’ve written repeatedly about on Stop the Cap!:

Key minority groups are backing the carriers’ efforts to thwart the net neutrality proposals, which would, for instance, prohibit carriers from charging more to give some residential and corporate customers priority in delivering online content.

“When you give national civil rights groups millions of private dollars, there’s no firewall strong enough to keep that money out of their policy,” said Malkia Cyril, executive director of the Center for Media Justice.

Cyril and other consumer and public advocates have been buoyed by comments from Federal Communications Commission member Mignon L. Clyburn, a prominent African American and daughter of Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.).

She said in a speech in January that she was surprised that most statements and filings by “some of the leading groups representing people of color have been silent on this make-or-break issue” of net neutrality.

“There has been almost no discussion of how important — how essential — it is for traditionally underrepresented groups to maintain the low barriers to entry that our current open Internet provides,” Clyburn said.

AT&T's cash machine benefits groups like LULAC

At issue are the enormous contributions from big phone and cable companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon that routinely translate into what we’ve called “dollar-a-holler” advocacy.  After the checks get deposited, many of these groups generate innocent sounding letters of support for the latest merger, deregulation, or policy debate — always in favor of Big Telecom and too often directly against the interests of the people they claim to represent.

No group better exemplifies this than the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), a particularly eager player in the cash for advocacy game.  And the group doesn’t care whether the money comes from Verizon or AT&T.  They’re on board with both.

Brent A. Wilkes, executive director, penned this guest editorial for the Houston Chronicle, for which he was called an “idiot” by at least one of the newspaper’s readers:

Net-neutrality rules should prevent broadband providers from engaging in anti-competitive behavior, but they should not be commandeered to insulate wealthy Internet applications companies from paying their fair share of the broadband bill. Any new rules must protect consumers both by ensuring their unfettered access and by shielding them from having to shoulder all the costs for faster broadband networks that our nation so badly needs. Such an approach will not please the special interests, but it will be a double win for consumers.

From AT&T’s talking points to Wilkes editorial.  “Wealthy Internet applications companies” already pay for their own bandwidth and for the Internet’s expansion.  Search engine companies like Google and Yahoo! construct data centers with their own money just to maintain their services to consumers, generating jobs and helping local economies.  Wilkes ignores the fact broadband providers already earn plenty from their subscribers — consumers and businesses who pay a monthly fee so they can access those “wealthy Internet applications companies.”

But that is not enough.  Now broadband providers want to be paid twice.  To facilitate their argument, they’ve invested more than a million dollars in LULAC alone to defend their position, which ultimately brings Latinos (and everyone else) the high broadband bills today that Wiles scaremongers will be forthcoming tomorrow.

Wilkes was shocked, shocked by the implication that phone company money would have anything to do with LULAC going out of its way to comment on arcane telecommunications policy issues, always in favor of its benefactors.

“It’s kind of like saying the minority organizations can’t think for themselves,” Wilkes said, adding that any suggestion that minority groups were mouthpieces for the industry was “offensive.”

Verizon played along:

“I can tell you we do not, and have not ever, given money to minority organizations so that they will support our positions on any topic,” said Peter Thonis, a spokesman for Verizon Communications Inc. “We talk to many groups about our positions, and some agree with us and some do not.”

So if Verizon talked to Stop the Cap! about their positions, do you think we’d receive a handsome check from the phone company?

Britt cut out all of the middlemen and picked up the phone to personally lobby FCC Chairman Genachowski about broadband reform.

The Times documented numerous other examples:

For instance, David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president, joined the board of the National Urban League three years ago as part of a three-year partnership to promote the league’s various educational programs. Comcast, now seeking FCC approval to buy a controlling interest in NBC Universal, was recognized that year for being one of several sponsors to donate $5 million or more to the organization.

On the local level, the Greater Sacramento Urban League has Barbara Winn, a Sacramento-area director of external affairs for AT&T, as its chairwoman and Linda Crayton, Comcast’s senior director for government affairs in California, as vice chairwoman.

That affiliate’s president, David B. DeLuz, wrote to the FCC in January that net neutrality rules “will strongly reduce broadband network investments and ultimately raise prices.” DeLuz said in an interview that the two telecom executives on the chapter’s board have not influenced its net neutrality stance.

“The Urban League does not engage in pay to play,” he said. “Just because [telecoms] write a check to us doesn’t mean they write the only check to us.”

The most remarkable part about the Urban League’s argument is that in a sea of corporate cash, competing checks can cancel each other out.

While the blizzard of bucks continues to descend on Washington, Time Warner Cable CEO Glenn Britt decided his cable company could cut out the middlemen and go right to the man with the plan to reclassify broadband.  Unlike ordinary consumers, Britt had no trouble getting FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski to take his call, allowing him to personally lobby against Net Neutrality and those nasty broadcasters trying to overcharge him for permission to carry local broadcast stations on the Time Warner Cable dial.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/ATT Net Neutrality There’s a problem.mp4[/flv]

It seems like only yesterday AT&T’s Ed “Our Pipes” Whitacre was clamoring for the right to deliver the Internet to consumers his way, complete with pay walls and speed throttles.  Very little has changed since Big Ed left for Government Motors with his $158 million AT&T golden parachute.  The name at the top has changed, but AT&T still recognizes money buys friends and influence.  (2 minutes)

Heaney

While Federal Communications Chairman Julius Genachowski continues his indecisive dawdling over whether to enforce Net Neutrality in the United States, the United Kingdom’s two largest Internet Service Providers have openly admitted without such protections they would openly discriminate against content providers’ traffic.  In fact, discriminating against providers based on who paid and who didn’t would be a perfectly normal business practice for any ISP, they declared.

Senior executives of both BT and TalkTalk let the truth spill from their lips at a Westminster eForum on Net Neutrality, something companies like Verizon, Comcast, and AT&T surely wish they hadn’t done.

The surprisingly open dialogue was covered in detail by PCPro, and sent on to us by our reader “PreventCAPS”:

Asked specifically if TalkTalk would afford more bandwidth to YouTube than the BBC’s iPlayer if Google was prepared to pay, the company’s executive director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney, argued it would be “perfectly normal business practice to discriminate between them”.

“We would do a deal and look at YouTube and look at the BBC, and decide,” he added.

When asked the same question, BT’s director of group industry policy, Simon Milner, replied: “We absolutely could see a situation when content or app providers may want to pay BT for quality of service above best efforts,” although he added BT had never received such an approach.

TalkTalk’s Heaney declared Net Neutrality a mythical concept, saying they already discriminate against traffic now that they have their foot in the door with “traffic management” policies.

“It’s a myth we have Net Neutrality today – we don’t,” he said. “There are huge levels of discrimination over traffic type. We prioritize voice traffic over our network. We shape peer-to-peer traffic and de-prioritize it during the busy hour.”

If British ISP’s are willing to discriminate against non-paying traffic on its networks, are American ISP’s going to act any differently?

Phillip Dampier to Chairman Genachowski - Don't Be Verizon's Sucker

Julius Genachowski was played.

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission hopefully just learned a valuable lesson about the corporations he’s dealing with.  Big telecom companies will be your friend and working partner until they get close enough to stick you with their knives.

Genachowski got it right in the back, betrayed by the companies he shepherded into secret backroom talks, ostensibly to find a non-regulatory solution to Net Neutrality.  While talks were underway, a few major players were quietly stalling for time to construct their own “private agreement” on Net Neutrality, threatening to up end the FCC’s Net Neutrality agenda into the toilet.  The rest were never really interested in anything less than total capitulation on the concept of Net Neutrality (I’m talking to you, AT&T).

And the merry-go-round goes round and round….

The FCC chairman was outmaneuvered from day one, even as he was willing to ignore his biggest supporters who believed he was honest about an open, pro-consumer FCC.

Stop the Cap! reader Dave noted the secret backroom talks between the bully boys and the FCC chairman’s chief of staff Ed Lazarus had collapsed late last week.  Extraordinary pressure from ordinary Americans helped torpedo those talks, as did the realization some of the participants were dealing behind the backs of their hosts.

Now that Verizon and Google have accomplished their Judas moment, the chairman of the FCC is just a tad angry in the papers:

“Any deal that doesn’t preserve the freedom and openness of the internet for consumers and entrepreneurs will be unacceptable,” Genachowski said at a recent press conference.

Some of Genachowski’s allies at the FCC hinted they were hardly surprised at the developments.

Commissioner Michael J. Copps has been around long enough to know better.  He was skeptical negotiations would deliver more than lip service and he was right.  With today’s announcement of a partnership on policy between Google and Verizon, Copps remained unimpressed, and issued a terse reaction:

“Some will claim this announcement moves the discussion forward. That’s one of its many problems. It is time to move a decision forward—a decision to reassert FCC authority over broadband telecommunications, to guarantee an open Internet now and forever, and to put the interests of consumers in front of the interests of giant corporations.”

Maybe it’s time for Chairman Genachowski to listen more to fellow commissioners like Mr. Copps and less time trying to negotiate with Verizon and AT&T.

It’s near impossible to find a consumer group not on big telecom’s payroll that likes any of these recent developments.  Their consistent message — stop trusting big corporations with America’s Internet future.  Do your job, stand up for Net Neutrality, and don’t cave in.

Public Knowledge: Google Sold You Out

Since late last year, we’ve been pushing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to place its authority to protect broadband consumers on firm legal ground. But faced with pressure from the largest cable and telephone companies, the agency has failed to act. Who is filling the void left by the FCC? Some of the world’s largest corporations.

Late last week, news broke that a traffic management agreement had been reached between Google and Verizon. This agreement would, among other things, allow Verizon to prioritize applications and content at whim over its mobile broadband network. In the absence of clear FCC authority, we can expect to see more deals like this in the near term. The largest telephone and cable companies and the largest web companies will carve up the Internet as they see fit, deciding who gets access to the Internet’s fast lane while the rest of us are stuck in the slow lane.

We’ve reached a critical crossroads—the time for FCC action is NOW. Private negotiations with industry players have failed. Public concern has reached a fever pitch. And some of the largest corporations on the web are lining up to put an end to the open Internet as we know it. The course of action couldn’t be more clear: the FCC needs to do the right thing and protect broadband users.

Free Press: Google – Don’t Be Evil

“Google and Verizon can try all they want to disguise this deal as a reasonable path forward, but the simple fact is this framework, if embraced by Congress and the Federal Communications Commission, would transform the free and open Internet into a closed platform like cable television. This is much worse than a business arrangement between two companies. It’s a signed-sealed-and-delivered policy framework with giant loopholes that blesses the carving up of the Internet for a few deep-pocketed Internet companies and carriers.

“If codified, this arrangement will lead to toll booths on the information superhighway. It will lead to outright blocking of applications and content on increasingly popular wireless platforms. It would give companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T the right to decide which content will move fast and which should be slowed down. And it will destroy the open Internet as a platform for small business innovation and job creation, cementing companies’, like Google’s, dominant market power online.

“Still worse, this deal proposes to keep the FCC from making rules at all. Instead of an even playing field for everyone, it proposes taking up complaints on a case-by-case basis, or even leaving it up to third-party industry groups to decide what the rules should be. The only good news is that neither of these companies is actually in charge of writing the rules that govern the future of the Internet. That is supposed to be the job of our leaders in Washington.

“Congress and the FCC should reject Verizon and Google’s plans to carve up the Internet for the private benefit of deep-pocketed special interests, and move forward with policies that preserve the open Internet for all. This begins with the FCC reasserting its authority over broadband to ensure it can protect the open Internet and promote universal access to affordable, world-class quality broadband.

“The Internet is one of our nation’s most important resources, and policymakers everywhere should recognize that the future of our innovation economy is far too important to be decided by a backroom deal between industry giants.” — Free Press Political Adviser Joel Kelsey (See more here.)

Newspapers  Say ‘Enough is Enough’

The San Francisco Chronicle

[…]Public interest and consumer groups didn’t feel like they had much of a say in the commission’s discussions, and they surely won’t feel like they had much of a say in whatever proposal Google and Verizon bring to the table. This is a huge problem – the future of the Internet belongs to the public, not just a few companies.

The ideal solution would be for Congress to step in and provide a framework for net neutrality – preferably one that keeps the public interest at heart, not the demands of dominant Internet companies and carriers.

That’s what the commission would prefer. It’s considering getting around the breakdown in negotiations by reclassifying broadband under a more heavily regulated part of telecommunications law, but the large cable and telephone companies will almost certainly sue. Congressional action would prevent this ugly scenario and its uncertain outcome.

And any proposal that Google and Verizon come up with will have to be approved by Congress. It would certainly serve the public interest better if Congress gathered input from more than just two companies and created a proposal of its own.

Unfortunately, Congress hasn’t shown much appetite for net neutrality legislation in the past, and we’re not optimistic about the near-term future. So it’s time for the commission to do the right thing and reclassify broadband.

Yes, that will mean lawsuits. It will mean that net neutrality has a precarious future. But it has a precarious future right now, and the public can’t afford to wait.

The Los Angeles Times

[…]Genachowski is right about the need for enforceable rules that prevent broadband providers from blocking or slowing access to websites and services they don’t favor. So far there have been only a few such incidents on DSL and cable-modem networks. But Internet service providers are itching to create a toll lane to deliver content and services from companies that have the resources to pay for better access to consumers. If that toll lane crowds out the free and open Internet that’s been a breeding ground for innovation and creativity, the whole economy will suffer.

[…]A major problem for the commission is that its authority to adopt such rules isn’t clear. Genachowski had hoped that the talks with Internet service providers and Web companies would yield a consensus on a bill Congress could quickly pass to grant the FCC clear but limited authority over broadband access. The breakdown of those talks complicates matters, and suggests that Genachowski may have to rethink his plan to enforce Net neutrality by bringing 21st century broadband providers under rules originally designed for 20th century telephone services. Whatever route it takes, though, the commission should move now.

[flv width=”480″ height=”380″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Young Turks – Google Verizon Killing Net Neutrality 8-9-10.flv[/flv]

Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks show explains the implications of Google & Verizon’s deal for both progressives and conservatives if big corporations get to take control of America’s Internet.  (6 minutes)

Is Rahm Emanuel the consigliere to a deal to sell out broadband consumers to big telecom companies like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast?

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is said to so afraid of big phone and cable companies donating millions to Republican candidates, he told agencies like the Federal Communications Commission to go along with Verizon, AT&T, and Big Cable’s demands for an end to Net Neutrality and other pro-consumer broadband reforms.

That is the rumor industry expert Dave Burstein is hearing about the prospects of broadband reclassification actually happening at the FCC this year.

It seems Verizon’s CEO Ivan Seidenberg has become a frequent guest at the White House, appearing 16 times since President Obama took office.  Seidenberg is behind the notion that saddling giant telecommunications companies with Net Neutrality will force those firms to flood Republicans with unprecedented campaign contributions.  That’s fascinating news, especially since most politicians claim campaign contributions never make any difference in how they vote on issues.  Perhaps Verizon is just being extra charitable this year.  The Republicans, who fall lock-step in support behind the nation’s largest phone and cable companies, will be delighted to accept.

With politicians like Rahm Emanuel involved, the fix may already be in.  Rule number one in politics is to always follow the money.  Rule number two is that many politicians will always take the money and vote against their constituents’ best interests unless voters are paying attention.  When a politician is forced to weigh the consequences of accepting a fat check from a corporation and voting with them or infuriating their constituents to the point of potentially losing the next election, they’ll vote with their constituents.

Meanwhile, telecom companies are engaged in a divide-and-conquer strategy, with Verizon recently making gestures to Google, one of Net Neutrality’s strongest  proponents.  Burstein thinks that unless public interest groups and the public-at-large don’t force an end to these insider deals, Net Neutrality and other broadband reforms will become little more than a voluntary agreement not to be too evil (until they redefine ‘evil’ as ‘good’ and do it anyway):

Julius (Genachowski) has already agreed to almost everything [telecom lobbyists] really want, including loopholes wide enough to carry 350 TV channels. [Stifel Nicolaus] says there is still some opposition so that nothing is final and that the public interest groups are ready to assail Julius. Meanwhile, Verizon and Google are discussing a separate peace that will make the FCC irrelevant.

This one is about power and money, not principle. The likely outcome is an agreement that will allow everyone to say noble things, will allow Julius to look himself in the mirror, and will essentially have no substance.  I hope I’m wrong.

[flv width=”640″ height=”500″]http://www.phillipdampier.com/video/Bloomberg Bloomberg’s Shields Discusses Net-Neutrality Battle 8-3-10.flv[/flv]

Bloomberg News reviews the regulatory landscape with the FCC’s secret weekend meetings to find a deal on broadband rules.  (2 minutes)

For consumer groups like Free Press and Public Knowledge, already furious over secret backroom negotiations between FCC officials and the nation’s large phone and cable companies, any deal that culminates in providers being allowed to tamper with Internet traffic, choosing favorites along the way, is tantamount to a deal with Tony Soprano.

Tim Karr from Free Press wrote a guest editorial in the Seattle Times Sunday warning there is a corporate deal in the making to take over the Internet:

On the one side, elected officials and regulators have heard from millions of citizens demanding that Washington protect this rule that preserves the Internet’s open architecture.

On the other is a lobbying juggernaut that seeks to dismantle online openness so that phone and cable companies can rebuild the Internet as a gated community that serves their bottom line.

The problem is that policymakers aren’t holding the line for the public. They seem content simply to cut a deal between companies with the most political and economic clout.

If that doesn’t worry you, it should.

Because the deal they’re cutting is over who ultimately wins control of online information. And it goes without saying that you’re not in the running.

Google, Verizon, AT&T and others are reportedly nearing consensus on an agreement that could radically redesign the Web, allowing the carriers to build priority access lanes that admit only large companies that can pay the toll.

Where will that leave the rest of us? Stranded on the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road, with slower service, fewer choices and limited access.

Here’s the kicker. The Federal Communications Commission, the one agency tasked with protecting your interests online, may be poised to sign off on this plan. The agency is reportedly convening closed-door meetings with these companies to strike a deal that would let Internet providers implement a “paid prioritization” scheme.

According to The Washington Post, the FCC’s chief of staff wanted to “seize an opportunity to agree on ways that carriers could “manage traffic” on their networks.

If recent articles by Amazon and AT&T execs are any indication, paid prioritization would allow carriers to ransom access to their customers to the highest bidder. AT&T’s top lobbyist, James Cicconi, wrote that such extortion was “not only necessary but in the best interest of consumers.”

Don’t believe it. The beauty of the open Internet is that anyone with an idea has a chance to take on giant corporations without first having to bribe network owners for access. Net neutrality is the rule that guarantees this openness.

It’s because of Net neutrality that great ideas like YouTube (which began in an office above a pizzeria in San Mateo) and Twitter (which grew out of a daylong brainstorming session among podcasters) blossomed to revolutionize how we connect and communicate with one another.

The paid prioritization deal under consideration wouldn’t allow for the next YouTube. And the next Twitter would likely never make it off the drawing board.

This scheme would let companies like Comcast and AT&T favor their own video services, voice applications and social media. It would let Verizon build a wide moat around its Internet fiefdom, insulating itself from competition by upstart innovators that want to show consumers how things can be done better and more cheaply.

Columbia Law Professor (and Free Press board chairman) Tim Wu has said that letting carriers choose favorites is “just too close to the Tony Soprano vision of networking: Use your position to make threats and extract payments. This is similar to the outlawed, but still common, ‘payola’ schemes in the radio world.

“If allowing network discrimination means being stuck with AT&T’s long-term vision of the Internet,” Wu concludes, “it won’t be worth it.”

Should any of this come to pass, it will mark the end of any credibility for FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who will have sold out to the interests of big telecom and, more importantly, proved himself little more than another inside-the-beltway-liar.  The implications for the Obama Administration’s credibility on broadband issues are devastating.

It was Genachowski himself who promised this would be the most open FCC ever and that he would see to it that the open principles of the Internet were safeguarded.  It’s more than a little difficult to see that happening while Genachowski’s staff secretly meets with telecom lobbyists to conclude a deal that will turn over control of Internet traffic to a broadband duopoly.