DoJ Takes Stand Against Net Neutrality

[snot]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20625194/ :

Justice Dept. Against ‘Net Neutrality’
Feds say imposing regulation on Internet could hamper development

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic. The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.
* * *
The agency's stance comes more than two months after Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras cautioned policy makers to enact Net neutrality regulation.
* * *
Supporters of Internet regulation have said that phone and cable companies could discriminate against certain Web site and services.
____________

I'm not sure what stands between AT&T and the internets as we know them, but if it's nothin' but the FCC, we (this means YOU, DU) have a problem.

Here's some more info:

The following is from http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/06/05/ed-whitacre-gone-but-not-forgotten/ ; see also http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/05/theres-a-problem-its-called-net-neutrality/ for partial text :

AT&T chief Ed Whitacre handed over the keys to his replacement Randall Stephenson yesterday, but not before giving a rousing pep talk to fellow executives in the company’s San Antonio board room. “There’s a problem. It’s called Net Neutrality,” Whitacre told the heirs to AT&T’s telecommunications empire. “Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We’re gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission.”
* * *
Despite claims of poverty whenever pressed to offer better services, these AT&T execs are privately gloating over more than $35 billion in gross profits over the last 12 months. Moreover, Whitacre (and now Stephenson) are pressuring Congress to allow them to provide privileged Web access to their customers to companies that pay them a special fee.

The phone and cable companies claim that this sort of discriminatory “double dipping” — charging both consumers and content providers — is necessary to provide the high-speed services that Americans demand. But it’s a fundamental shift in the neutral way the Internet has always worked. In essence, it takes away user choice — the most basic tenet of the Internet — and hands it to AT&T. "Will Congress let us do it?” Whitacre asks his colleagues. “You bet they will — cuz we don’t call it cashin’ in. We call it ‘deregulation.’ ”
* * *
Recent broadband data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) had the U.S. slipping to 15th out of 30 nations in per capita broadband use. . . .
* * *
Whitacre remains intent to defy public opinion, funnel cash into Washington and win over control of the Internet once and for all. "With all of our generous campaign contributions, I’m quite certain that Congress will see it our way,” he said during his farewell speech. “Who else they gonna listen to? The public?!?”

C.f. India, where they’re installing nationwide, free wi-fi -- http://c-cyte.blogspot.com/2007/04/free-nation-wide-wi-fi.html

See also:

http://c-cyte.blogspot.com/2007/06/no-end-in-sight-to-efforts-to-end.html

http://www.corporations.org/media/

http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml

http://www.stopbigmedia.com/

http://www.monthlyreview.org/301rwm.htm — note, this article was first presented in 2000 so presumably summarizes the situation based on statistics from even earlier; I’d bet money that, overall, considerable further consolidation has occurred.

I don’t know a total solution, but the following measures might help:

Protect net neutrality.

Restore restrictions on media ownership consolidation.

Adopt conflict-of-interest regulations to the effect you can’t directly or indirectly own more than a small percentage in any media business or serve in any senior management position in such a business if you are in or seeking a governmental position or if you also own more than a small percentage of any other kind of business or are a member of senior management in such a business.

Adopt the equivalent of anti-trust laws but concerned directly with control over information and the outlets for it, rather than with control over commercial resources.

Enforce existing anti-trust laws.

[Spiffarino]

1. I'm worried that the Dems will fold on NN, same as Iraq, FISA, etc.

They are spineless twits. I have zero faith in them any more.

Somebody please explain to me why I'm wrong. I'd love to be wrong.

[snot]

2. I fear it too -- esp. because

this issue doesn't seem to be on the general public's radar. But as bad as things are, can you imagine what they'd be like if we hadn't had net neutrality so far!

Here's some more interestng info:

From http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/agendas/att-may-have-censored-bands-political-speech-in-the-past-288236.php :

"AT&T May Have Censored Bands' Political Speech in the Past

"While AT&T claimed to be just as outraged as we were over their censoring of Pearl Jam's anti-Bush lyrics during their Lollapallooza stream, they might not be being all that honest. They claim that it was a one-time mistake made by an outsourced company. Really? According to Wired's Listening Post, concerts streamed on the Blue Room by The Flaming Lips and the John Butler Trio have also been censored for political reasons. If true, this action coupled with past allegations aimed at AT&T suggests an unnerving pro-Bush political agenda from one of America's biggest telecoms.

"They did the same thing on the webcasts from Bonnaroo in June during the John Butler Trio show when he was talking about the lack of response from our government during Katrina, and also during the Flaming Lips show when the lead singer was talking about how much George Bush had screwed up. I was at both of those live shows and saw the webcasts later. The sound did not cut out at any other time—only when someone was talking about George Bush or the goverment in a negative way.
If confirmed, this is a really unsettling pattern. While bleeping out curses is their prerogative, censoring artists' political speech is not something that should be happening. AT&T wants to paint the response to this as reactionary and totally unrelated to prior stories of them spying on people for the NSA and RIAA/MPAA, but in my eyes this all falls under the same overreaching umbrella."

and from http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070810_002683.html :

"The $200 Billion Rip-Off: Our broadband future was stolen.
By Robert X. Cringely
[e-mail]

"This is part three of my explanation of how America went from having the fastest and cheapest Internet service in the world to what we have today -- not very fast, not very cheap Internet service that is hurting our ability to compete economically with the rest of the world. Part one detailed expected improvements in U.S. broadband based on emerging competitive factors, yet decried that it was too little too late. Part two explained how U.S. broadband ISPs are different from most overseas ISPs and how those differences make it unlikely that we'll ever regain leadership in this space. And this week's final part explains that this all came about because Americans were deceived and defrauded by many of their telephone companies to the tune of $200 billion -- money that was supposed to have gone to pay for a broadband future we don't -- and never will -- have."

More at links.

[kster]

3. Because you don't include the spineless twit Republicans

Pick on Dem's, I'm all for that, but when you do not include the Reps in your post it makes it look like you are accusing only Dem Politicians.

What about the spineless twit Reps?

[natrat]

16. i think we all just take for granted republicans will do the wrong thing

i have no faith in the process anymore either

[Spiffarino]

19. That's my answer.

I do assume that Republicans are understood to be wrong about pretty much everything on this board. You summed it up perfectly.

[MessiahRp]

4. Surprised that the DOJ which is nothing more than another RNC political operation

Would support big corporations rather than protect Americans... AGAIN.

I think the entire DOJ needs to be shitcanned.

Rp

[slipslidingaway]

5. Wonderful :( K&R n/t

[snot]

6. AND just came across this:

(thanks, proud2BLib!) From http://www.progressive.org/mag_mc090407 :

CBS Early Show Removes Anti-War Protesters from View in Kansas City
September 4, 2007 By Matthew Rothschild
* * *
“I received an e-mail about the event and a flier from the Early Show inviting people to attend,” says Ira Harritt, Kansas City area program coordinator for the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). . . . Harritt recruited people to come and carry some AFSC “Cost of War” banners. These are seven feet long and three feet high, and they all give different answers to the question: “One Day of the Iraq War Equals.” (Such as $720 million, or 84 elementary schools, etc.)

“We started assembling the banners in the park,” Harritt says, “and immediately, a CBS staff person said, ‘You can’t be here. You can’t have those here.’ ”


* * *
“There was a woman with a CBS badge on who kept going back to the CBS trailer. And she told us, ‘If those things get on the air, I’m going to lose my job.’ ”

[demobabe]

7. Ugg, just uggg...

This all peeves me to no end. I'll just kick your thread for now. :(

[snot]

10. Thank you! I don't know why this issue

hasn't gotten more respect around here, but hopefully that will change.

[demobabe]

21. kick for snot

:)

[slipslidingaway]

8. Kick, we'll all have a problem...

"I'm not sure what stands between AT&T and the internets as we know them, but if it's nothin' but the FCC, we (this means YOU, DU) have a problem."

[JCMach1]

9. There has got to be a way the rest of the net could cut these jokers off

if they violate net neutrality. Give them an all, or nothing resolution.

[slipslidingaway]

11. Who would dare to take on the big corporations :( n/t

[JCMach1]

12. The only ones who would fork over the money are the big corporations

if most everyone else banded together and boycotted exery attempt by AT&T routers to access the sites who were boycotting... Consumers would rebel at that prospect...

However, that's the kind of chaos that can happen if net neutrality is revoked... Open things to the predatory market and all bets are off.

[blogslut]

13. Someone explain to me

...exactly WHY is the Department of Justice making statements to the FCC on the issue of Net Neutrality? I mean the DoD, I might understand ,since they were the ones that got this whole interwebs ball rolling, but the DOJ? How on earth is Net Neutrality a law enforcement issue? An which little DOJ troll made this statement? Is this part of that special pact they made with telecommunications providers regarding NSA wiretapping? "Do what we ask and we'll protect you?"

I sure would like to know exactly how that statement came to be.

[mhatrw]

14. What a surprise that the DOJ is in the wrong on this!

:sarcasm:

[blogslut]

15. kick

For the people's Interwebs.

:kick:

[Vidar]

17. Well of course the corporate enforcers take the side of the capitalist robber barons.

[mmonk]

18. We would have to have political representation.

We do not live in a true democracy. We live in the world's biggest whore house. Unless we have mega millions to fill the prostitute's pockets in Washington, you can forget it.

[Spiffarino]

20. I'm not quite as cynical as you seem to be...

...but I'm damn close.

Congress is far too dependent on money to maintain office. The only way we can change them is to fund them ourselves, either through direct action (difficult) or taxes (enormously unpopular). As long as big money rules, we can rule out representative democracy.