Obama FCC Expected to Abandon Net Neutrality, Universal Internet

[Echo In Light]

by Josh Silver

On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the Federal Communications Commission is expected to abandon its pledges to protect Net Neutrality and to ensure universal, affordable broadband. The story cites anonymous insiders confirming that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski is "leaning toward" siding with the most powerful phone and cable lobbyists on a crucial decision: whether the FCC will have any authority to protect an open Internet and make it available to all.

It is a testament to the phone and cable industry's overwhelming influence that they seem to have convinced the nation's communications agency to swear off authority to protect Americans' right to open communications. But it is stunning that Genachowski would even contemplate allowing it to stand, given President Obama's repeated pledge to ensure fast, affordable, universal Internet broadband for every American.

So what's going on here?

In early April, a a federal appeals court ruled that, based on decisions by the Bush-era FCC, the agency lacks the authority to regulate broadband providers. In so doing, the court effectively handed control of the Internet to companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon -- allowing them to slow down or block any website, any blog post, any tweet, any outreach by a congressional campaign. The FCC no longer has the power to stop them.

Fortunately, the FCC does have the power to easily fix the problem by "reclassifying" broadband under the law. All it would take is a vote by its five commissioners -- and Genachowski already has the votes. But so far, he has done nothing, while proponents of Net Neutrality (the principle that prevents providers from indiscriminately blocking or slowing Internet content) have been watching and waiting with bated breath.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/05/04-5

[rocktivity]

1. If Obama knows what's good for him

That is, if Obama knows that that Net neutrality put him in office as much as anything else--he'll get his fixed FAST.

:scared:
rocktivity

[Better Believe It]

9. What's good for Wall Street and corporate America is good for President Obama

[WinkyDink]

23. For one term, anyway.

[MadHound]

2. Sometimes it is stunning what this administration is doing

I find them to be very much like Clinton, talking a good progressive/Democratic game, but all the while they're following a corporatist agenda.

[madokie]

5. Do we even know this as fact yet?

[Romulox]

3. if "net neutrality" works anything like the way I'm forced to pay for Benny Hinn if I want cable...

I do not want. Sorry. :shrug:

[Occulus]

7. Fortunately for you, you're way off base.

Net neutrality only means that data on the network is trated equally regardless of its origination point or its destination. Without net neutrality (for example), web sites that are hosted on servers owned by company X would be "asked" to remove posts critical of company X, Company X would be able to throttle (severely slow down) content originating with subscribers of Company Y, sites like Daily Kos and this one might be asked to pay extra to Company X (and perhaps Companies Y and Z) for users to access the site at full speed, etc.

Net neutrality keeps the playing field level for all, so your monthly internet access fee gets you the whole internet as fast as you are able to access it without outside interference. Do you want to pay $5 extra a month for games, $5 extra for news sites, $5 extra for blogs, etc.? Then get rid of net neutrality.

This is a big, wet kiss to companies like Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, etc., and you better believe that as soon as it is abandoned, they will be making efforts to scrub from the web information critical of them that flows over their networks, either by throttling the speed at which those servers hosting that content can serve the content, or by requiring an "access fee" that those blogs and websites simply cannot pay.

This will kill the internet as we know it.

[Romulox]

10. Wait a minute. What about stuff like bit torrent, streaming movies (over commercial services) etc.?

There is a fundamental question of fairness: why should a person be forced to subsidize p2p sharing, or you watching Netflix streaming movies? If the internet is a public service, let it be made public.

What I object to is that assertion that I must subsidize your economic activity; if it costs more money to stream from Netflix, why shouldn't you have to pay for it? Why should I bear some of your cost as a price of using the internet?

[uponit7771]

15. There's tons and tons of bandwidth available, don't know why streaming is an issue

[Romulox]

32. That bandwidth is "available" because all customers are required to pay upwards of $60/month

regardless of how much they use.

Why shouldn't Granny get cheaper internet that doesn't include p2p? She needs to pay more so that World of Warcraft, Itunes TV shows, and Hulu stay cheap? I don't see the case here. The big drivers in bandwidth are all commercial in nature; you need bandwidth then you should pay for it!

[Occulus]

37. You're missing the point; currently, the network itself doesn't care.

It's as fair as it is possible to be right now, which is why the network owners don't like it: all data is treated the same; if there's a problem, the internet routes around it. That's how it's designed, and for very good reason. "Economic activity" does not- and should not- be allowed to enter into the equation; that way lies madness.

Your objections are precisely why I found a provider that offers no data download limit- I download over two dozen gigabytes every time I reinstall my OS. Most of that is games, the first Ubuntu update, software demos, and the like. I download most of it through Valve's Steam distribution platform. What do you think would happen to their (and EA's, and Stardock's Impule) online distribution platform if net neutrality disappeared? What about linux, and its absolute need to distribute online?

What this would ultimately amount to is a requirement for each website that wants to be seen to have to pay an "access fee" of some sort to Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, and on and on, either directly or via increased hosting fees. These fees would have to be provided to all the big players, in order for everyone to still be able to view the content and those that didn't pay it (or refused to) would see their content "disappeared" to certain internet users (who would probably see a simple 404 Not Found for their trouble).

None of that, by the way, addresses the idea of deliberate censorship on the part of the media companies who would be the ultimate deciders of any pricing policy. They could very easily kill Kos and this site and the online presence of Greenpeace if they decided to disallow them on their networks. Right now, that decision doesn't really exist because of net neutrality.

In the end, the internet would still be full of content, but you won't be allowed to see some of it because the access fees haven't been paid or the network owner doesn't like the site or whatever other reason. I know that's a doom-and-gloom picture, but that's what will happen if we don't keep net neutrality.

[Romulox]

51. Electronic Arts, Stardock, and Steam are all COMMERCIAL services. That is precisely the point.

"I download over two dozen gigabytes every time I reinstall my OS. Most of that is games, the first Ubuntu update, software demos, and the like. I download most of it through Valve's Steam distribution platform. What do you think would happen to their (and EA's, and Stardock's Impule) online distribution platform if net neutrality disappeared? What about linux, and its absolute need to distribute online?"

What about people like my mom, who couldn't afford broadband for years on the $60/month take it or leave it basis it is offered on? I guarantee she doesn't know what Ubuntu or Stardock is. Why should EA and Valve's desire to make money be a barrier of entry to the internet for her?

Neither she nor any of your neighbors should be forced to offset any of the expense for your to use Steam (I use Steam too, for what it's worth.)

[GoneOffShore]

47. And how do you feel about single payer health care?

[Romulox]

52. Strongly in favor. This "net neutrality" is closer to Obama's triangulated "HCR"--mandated private

purchases so that companies like Electronic Arts don't have to pay the full costs of their distribution model... :shrug:

[uponit7771]

11. Actual Obama Basher quote "....facts are wrong..."

[laughingliberal]

4. The new 'bidness friendly' Democratic party? nt

[whatchamacallit]

6. I'm starting to believe the president is following a script written before he ran.

At this point the main difference between democrats and republicans is republicans talk crazier.

[WinkyDink]

26. So am I. And it would explain much about his fast-track to the WH.

[Tailormyst]

34. Here is my thought

Corporate front man. He gets rich and famous and the corporations get richer and more powerful.

[Echo In Light]

38. To be fair, however, that is applicable to any "electable" prez candidate

[Tailormyst]

45. Absolutely

[Xithras]

8. You know, I've never liked the idea of the FCC controlling the Internet anyway.

The FCC has been used by various government leaders, almost since its inception, as a tool to enforce whatever morality they were peddling on any medium they controlled. Remember the bans and threats of major fines that drove music like 2LiveCrew off the airways in the late 80's and early 90's? Or how about Janet Jacksons breast, which lead to more than $4 million in fines and lawsuit settlements? Do we really want THAT agency in charge of regulating the Internet?

Whether or not we like it, there WILL be another conservative majority elected at some point in the future. Maybe not this election, or the next, but it will eventually happen. I don't want them to have any authority over what we say, do, and see online.

And don't think that it can't happen. There were several attempts to ban porn and other Internet content in the 1990's that fizzled, in large part because of unanswered questions on authority. Give them authority, and you can bet real money that they'll start trying again.

[karynnj]

16. Think more how they regulate landline based telephony

not content. The question was the FCC rethinking the Bush era designation of the Internet as an information provider rather than as a network on which the information passes.

The fact is that the bit torrent problem could be handled under either designation. There is no reason that under regulation the only fee has to be unlimited service.

[Xithras]

28. But even looking that way, you find issues.

About 10 years ago the FCC attempted to implement manadatory wiretapping standards for ISP's under the authority of the old wiretapping laws meant for phone lines. A judge later threw out that order, stating that the FCC has declared the Internet to be an information provider, which was not covered. While several laws since (including the Patriot Act) have restored some Internet wiretapping authority to the FCC, it is still very limited.

By granting the FCC the authority to regulate the Internet as a network, you are also pulling it under the authority of CALEA, which will restore full wiretap access to them. Remember the wiretap controversy from a few years ago? That could be extended, in the future, to cover more than just phone calls.

So, no, I don't trust the FCC. Never have, never will.

[onenote]

31. the decision not to treat ISPs as subject to Title II regulation goes back to 1998

For the record, the decision during the bush years to classify Internet service as an information service rather than as a Title II service really just carried forward a policy articulated by the FCC during the Clinton administration. In 1998, the FCC had the following to say about the regulatory status of ISPs: "...we find that Internet service providers generally do not provide
telecommunications. Our analysis, we believe, reflects a consistent approach that will
safeguard the current and future provision of universal service to all Americans, and will
achieve the Congressionally-specified goals of a 'pro-competitive, deregulatory
communications policy.'"

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/fcc98067.pdf

[karynnj]

36. Thanks for the correction

[LiberalAndProud]

12. As I read it, unnamed sources say "leaning toward".

I'll believe it if I see it.

[jgraz]

19. Standard trial balloon. Just like they were "leaning toward" abandoning the Public Option.

[Echo In Light]

22. +1

[amborin]

13. k&R yet another betrayal

a radio program about a month or so ago saying the White House web site had ominously dropped mention of some crucial provision re: this issue, whereas it had previously upheld the campaign promises

[jgraz]

17. Sorry, but this is not just "another betrayal". This is Obama putting an end to democracy.

They want the internet turned into the equivalent of pay cable tv. And we know how well that turned out.

[amborin]

20. you're right; "another betrayal" doesn't begin to capture what's occurring

[WinkyDink]

25. It ought to be like the TELEPHONE: UNIVERSAL, and transmitting ANY message.

[QC]

14. I feel so hopeful! n/t

[upi402]

18. Obama continues to act like a Clinton-Republican

Happy now corporate Dems?

[amborin]

21. Obama governs to the right of Nixon

just look at the HCR debacle; Nixon's proposals were actually more progressive

[upi402]

27. Nixon [gulp] did a lot, and wanted to fight the drug war...

...with treatment centers for addicts. :head in hands:
Obama is to the right of Goldwater and the TV media airs the goats that bleat of his socialism.

[amborin]

29. "socialism" == "untrammeled, un-regulated, neo-liberal capitalism"

[upi402]

35. upi402 = no party

The "Democratic" Party left me for the rich guy with the flashy BMW.

[amborin]

40. by abandoning democratic (lower case 'd') principles

[bvar22]

39. I feel a little compassion for the Big Dog.

His title of "Best Republican President Ever" is in jeopardy.

"2nd Best Republican President Ever" doesn't have near the glamor.

[amborin]

41. LOL!

[onenote]

24. for all those in a lather about the end of democracy

Congress could change the regulatory status of the Internet if they wanted to. Chances are they don't. And chances are they don't want the FCC to do so either.

Leaving aside the issue of whether an FCC decision reversing course on the regulatory classification of Internet service would stand up in court and/or have all sorts of unintended consequences.

Bottom line -- the reason Genachowski seems to be rethinking how to respond to the Comcast case ruling is that it turns out to be a lot more complicated for the FCC to reverse that order than some are suggesting.

[uponit7771]

30. FUCK FACTS!!! /sarcasm

[JoeyT]

44. Yep, congress is to blame.

The president has no power whatsoever. Zero. He's not even allowed to ask congress for things.
Well, until a bill people like gets passed. Then he did it alone and should be photoshopped into Superman outfits.

[Tailormyst]

33. Can't say as I am surprised

One more letdown in a string of let downs. This is what happens when you get duped into voting for corporate front men and women. You can't swing a stick in DC without hitting one.

[Echo In Light]

42. Bump

[scentopine]

43. Thanks for posting this! Keep the pressure going! -nt

[Echo In Light]

49. +1

[Stinky The Clown]

46. They may be known by the lengths to which they will go in tying themselves into knots to defend ....

.... the indefensible.

[Wednesdays]

48. K&R

:kick:

[Armstead]

50. Kick and Recommend -- This would be an unacceptable flip flop.