Pam Brown's Blog l emission - control. net

Get ready for the right-wing onslaught against net neutrality | The Seminal

The lobbyist-funded teabag wing of the Republican party machinery is working in close consultation with telecom companies and organizations like the American Cable Association, AT&T, Comcast, and the US Telecom Association to stop the FCC’s planned protection of net neutrality, which was announced last week.

via seminal.firedoglake.com

The FCC's move to restore the consensus driven status quo prior to the recent Comcast v. FCC has drawn a lot of heat from conservative/teabagger activists, who claim that the government wants to "take over" the internet.  Not surprisingly this claim is completely untrue.  Still, is status quo what we really want?  Before the legal battles will stop and effective regulation can begin, Congress needs to codify net neutrality policy so that there is legal clarity with consumer protection at its heart.

The Third Way:  A Narrowly Tailored Broadband Framework

A Huge Victory for Comcast, Yet Another Defeat for the Public Good

This may really be the final blow.  In fact it will be, unless the FCC and Congress really step up and wage another possibly futile fight to protect the public interest from corporate greed and control.  But after the protracted health insurance reform debate, the Congress either may be feeling invigorated or exhausted, so we'll have to wait and see.  Almost all of the recent talk about net neutrality has focused FCC initiatives toward codifying this principle.  Unfortunately, way too little attention was focused on the critical Comcast case challenging the FCC's authority to regulate the internet.  Many of you have been following my work and thoughts on the sort of tactics Comcast has been using to slow traffic to sites that represent competitive threats to their business model, in particular BitTorrent, so I won't get into any background.  But a key aspect of Comcast's legal position was that the FCC did not have the legal authority to regulate them.  Most have disagreed with me that this was a critical problem for the FCC, but on Tuesday my gravest fears came true.  The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has incontrovertibly ruled that the FCC has no jurisdiction over internet service providers such as Comcast and Time Warner Cable.  In other words, the FCC cannot stop Comcast from "managing traffic" over their network in any manner they choose.  In our internet saturated media environment this ruling leaves the FCC completely impotent.  What this means for you and me is that when our download speed is inexplicably slow, the cause may be a lot of traffic, but the problem may also be that our service provider has decided that they don't want us visiting a particular site.  So, "freedom" for Comcast certainly not amount to freedom for you and me. 

After court ruling, what happens to net neutrality?

How I Lost the Big One, Bigtime 

The Internet’s Last Hope

Comcast ruling raises questions on FCC regulation

U.S. Court Curbs F.C.C. Authority on Web Traffic

US Court Rules AGAINST FCC On Net Neutrality In Big Win For Comcast

Senator Franken Rips Into Comcast CEO Brian Roberts

Josh Silver of Free Press:  "Not everyone is swallowing the snake oil Comcast is peddling to grease its takeover of NBC. None shone brighter yesterday than Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who aggressively interrogated Comcast CEO Brian Roberts and NBC Universal President Jeff Zucker -- all but accusing them of lying to his face."

Senator Franken Rips Into Comcast CEO Brian Roberts

I would also add to Senator Franken's comments that not only did they falsely assert that FCC rules prevent a conflict of interest between content and carriage, but also that Comcast is in the process of appealing previous net neutrality rulings against them by asserting that the FCC has no jurisdiction.  So, they are simultaneously saying that the FCC rules prevent a conflict, while claiming that the FCC has no jurisdiction.

Biggest Net Neutrality boosters question FCC proposal

From The Washington Post: 

"The strength or weakness of a proposed Internet rule, known as net neutrality, could rest in the interpretation of just one word: "reasonable."

The way that word is defined can tilt fortunes in the Web economy and set the course for how consumers use the Web today and in the future, proponets of the policy say.

Now, a group of law professors and public interest groups are telling the Federal Communications Commission that its proposed rules don't sufficiently define what that word means for Internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon as they management traffic on their networks. In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski sent this morning, the legal scholars -- all long-time proponents of net neutrality -- are asking the agency to clear up ambiguity on "reasonable network management" practices in a draft of rules."

Biggest Net Neutrality boosters question FCC proposal

AT&T Says Google Voice Violates Net Neutrality Principles

From The New York Times:

"AT&T is playing a “gotcha” with Google. The big phone company filed a letter with the Federal Communications Commission Friday saying the Google Voice calling system violates the commission’s network neutrality principles.

At issue is Google’s decision not to connect Google Voice customers to certain conference calling and other lines because of what it says are excessive access charges by the providers of those lines. AT&T, which is required to connect its telephones to all lines, says Google is discriminating against certain uses of its network, a no-no in the network neutrality world."

AT&T Says Google Voice Violates Net Neutrality Principles 

FCC Defends Internet Regulation Authority

From Broadcasting & Cable:

"The FCC this week told a D.C. federal appeals court that it had the authority to take action against Comcast for "covertly interfering" with BitTorrent peer-to-peer traffic in violation of Internet openness principles, and doing so in an adjudicatory proceeding rather than a rulemaking.

That argument was made in a brief to the court on the same day FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced he proposed codifying and expanding those principles.
 
The commission also more broadly asserted its authority to regulate the Internet. "Congress created the FCC for cases such as this one," it told the court. "Congress gave the agency broad and adaptable jurisdiction so that it can keep pace with rapidly evolving communications technologies. The Internet is such a technology."

Comcast pulled the plug on the practice, but also challenged the legal basis and authority for the FCC to conclude that it was using unreasonable network management techniques and was not giving customers sufficient notice about how it was managing its network."

FCC Defends Internet Regulation Authority

What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About

From DSLreports.com:

"If you've paid attention, you know the modern "network neutrality" debate took off in 2005, when then AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proudly, though dumbly, proclaimed that Google got a "free ride" on his network. According to Ed, this unfairness could only be rectified by charging companies who already pay for bandwidth money to ensure their traffic reaches AT&T consumers quickly. Such a bizarre statement obviously resulted in fear that phone companies planned to act as trolls under the metaphorical Internet bridge, grumpily extorting passers by. That created a desire by content companies and consumers for laws that would prevent this from happening.

The entire concept of network neutrality is really very simple. It was born out of phone company executive greed, and remains driven by legitimate fear of market abuses by companies with a long history of them. Unfortunately, over the years the debate has been so badly mutilated by PR folk, shoddy journalism and policy wonks that it has become a nonsensical mess."

What Network Neutrality Is REALLY About

FCC Defends Comcast Ruling

From The Daily Online Examiner:

"The Federal Communications Commission has asked an appellate court to rule that the agency had the authority to sanction Comcast for violating neutrality principles by blocking peer-to-peer traffic.

"The FCC has general jurisdiction over all interstate communications by radio and by wire, which includes Comcast's cable modem service," the agency argued in papers filed this week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Therefore, the FCC says, it was entitled to sanction Comcast even in the absence of a specific law or regulation banning the company from degrading peer-to-peer traffic."

FCC Defends Comcast Ruling

Senate Republicans Scrap Anti-Net Neutrality Push

From The Washington Post:

"Senate Republicans have stopped their push to prevent funding for the Federal Communication Commission as a protest of proposed net neutrality rules.

"While we are still generally opposed to net neutrality regulations, we have decided to hold off on the amendment because [FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski] approached us and we are beginning a dialogue," said a staff member on the committee."

Senate Republicans Scrap Anti-Net Neutrality Push

Want to Change the Media? Be a Lobbyist

If you're interested in media reform, take the time to read the entire speech by Craig Aaron excerpted and linked below:

"I'm here to report on what's happening in Washington.

Washington is changing. It has been a different place. Even that swampy, muggy August weather hasn't seemed so disgusting this year. There's still optimism in the air.

I'm here to tell you that if you care about media and the arts, it matters who is in the White House. It matters who controls Congress.

Maybe most of all, it matters who gets appointed to those sometimes invisible but oh-so-important places like the NEA, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the Federal Communications Commission.

That's because decisions being made right now -- and in the next few years -- at the White House, in Congress, and at these agencies are going to shape the future of all media for a generation.

They will decide ...

... If the Internet will remain open and free;

... If everyone will share in the benefits of broadband;

... If we're going to have a world-class public media system; and,

... If we'll have any hard-hitting public service journalism.

The good news is we now have friends in some of these key jobs. You know them. They will read your e-mails and return your calls. They want your ideas. They want to do the right thing.

Yes, Washington is changing. But there is a whole lot of Washington that still needs to change.

At Free Press, we often find ourselves going up against big phone and cable companies like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and AT&T.

We recently looked at just the first six months of the Obama administration. And we found that those four companies and their trade associations alone had hired more than 500 lobbyists -- that's one for almost every member of Congress -- and spent more than $45 million. And that's just what they report."

Read the whole speech by Craig Aaron of Free Press

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-aaron/want-to-change-the-media_b_277338.html