Two FCC Commissioners and one US Senator slammed the Google-Verizon joint policy agreement and strongly endorsed the principle of net neutrality last night at a hearing before hundreds of citizens in Minneapolis, giving the Chairman of the federal agency Julius Genachowski all of the support he would need to regulate broadband Internet, if he so chose.
Democratic Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn both endorsed the reclassification of broadband as a communications service, under Title II of the Telecommunications Act. Copps said simply, “It’s calling an apple an apple.” If Genachowski agreed, he would thus have enough votes to pass the change in policy. Genachowski and the FCC released a plan in May to reclassify, but has yet to move on it, taking meetings with industry stakeholders and generally foot-dragging in an effort to reach consensus.
In the interim, Internet giant Google and telecom giant Verizon announced a joint policy agreement that made a distinction between wireline and wireless Internet, and also allowed for undefined “managed services” to discriminate between online content. Both Copps and Clyburn sharply criticized the statement. The deal “would eliminate any openness provisions over wireless, which is where all Internet applications are going,” said Copps, the longtime Commissioner. Clyburn, the daughter of House Majority Whip James Clyburn, agreed. “Any proposal that treats wire-line and wireless Internet differently would be impossible for me to support,” she said, citing the increasing tendency for minority Web users to access the Internet on phones or wireless devices.
Sen. Al Franken, who has led on the issue of net neutrality recently, concurred. Speaking of the Google-Verizon deal, he said, “We can’t let companies write the rules that we the people are supposed to follow. Because if that happens those rules will be written only to protect corporations.” As Copps put it, “Dealmaking between big Internet players is not policymaking for the common good.”
Copps and Clyburn were also in agreement on the crucial importance of net neutrality for all Internet products. While stressing that the issue “is not about regulating the content on the Internet,” a clear response to tea party activists and conservatives who have criticized net neutrality in that fashion, Clyburn called an open Internet “the great equalizer” and preferred a situation where “consumers and not corporations managing their own experience on Internet.” Copps cited the great importance of citizen action and the Web’s role as a tool in facilitating that, but said that “truth only tells its story when it can be heard.”
Adding some levity to the proceedings, Franken alluded to the controversy around the Park51 Islamic cultural center project near Ground Zero. “Net neutrality is the First Amendment fight of the 21st century, except for religious freedom, which before last week I thought was settled.” Franken also warned of the imminent merger between Comcast and NBC Universal, and the dangers of having a company control the content and the pipe through which that content can be viewed.
In an editorial yesterday, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) added his voice to the chorus of criticism over the Google-Verizon deal, describing it as “an effort to kill off the open Internet.” Despite Grayson’s earlier preference for Congress to deal with the matter, he says here “It’s time for the FCC to step up. It’s time for Congress to step up. It’s time for all of us to step up” in support of net neutrality, suggesting there would be plenty of back-up for reclassification if the FCC chose that route.
While the opinions of Copps and Clyburn are nothing new – just yesterday they posted an editorial with similar views in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune – this public display of support for net neutrality makes perfectly clear that two votes exist on the FCC for strong regulatory authority over broadband in all its forms. Only three votes would be needed for passage, so really, it’s all up to Chairman Genachowski.



34 Comments



Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Too bad the lawmakers can’t resist when the checkbooks come out. 80 percent of the American people hate the SCOTUS Citizens United decision and nothing has been done to address that. Net Neutrality will go the way of “change you can believe in”.
Thanks for this, David. Fingers crossed!
Does anyone else have the sick feeling that if this happened Obomber would issue an anti obscenity decree?
Or a decree that would allow for the takedown of “contraversial” websites without any real definition?
Obomber never stood for civil liberties, I’m certain that he’d use his net neutrality loss (He’s against it because he’s a corporatist pig) as a chance to stick it to the “professional left” by putting into place a obscenity decree or national security decree for website takedown.
Genachowski’s ties to web sites like Expedia and Motley Fool (and the other sites I got from his Wikipedia entry) make me wonder if it’s safe to hope.
I don’t understand why business is not speaking out in favor of NN more. Without NN, banks and other monied institutions will likely have to grease some palms to keep their sites on the information superhighway, and they will then pass those costs to their customers. All the Ebays, Amazon.coms, will have to either A) pay up, B) stop the destruction of NN, or C) buy their own chunk of the internet backbone so they can start charging for access too.
Why do I have this sinking feeling that there will always be one vote too few to get this “public option” passed?
Net Neutrality has created thousands of new jobs. Allowing a few major corps to control the web will eliminate thousands of jobs. Continued job creation should be the goal. DUH.
Time to replace those 2 votes with more corp friendly folks. /s
Consensus = Industry Sellout. Screw consensus, do the right thing for a change.
The main theme being followed by these people is to starve the beast to ensure that government as we have known it fails. This involves runaway deficits made possible by huge trillion dollar wars and a continuation of the bush tax breaks to the rich. If anything i would presume they would prefer a continued high unemployment rate to “soften up” the population. Yes, i would expect the executive branch to cave on net neutrality and tax policy if history is a guide.
While ostensibly, the Repugs blocking any legislation the WH wants to insure Obama fails, it’s apparent that the real goal is the utter collapse of the US Government as we have known it, as the Constitution has guided it, as human values have prompted it.
NeroCongress fiddled asRomethe US failed.“Only three votes would be needed for passage, so really, it’s all up to Chairman Genachowski.”
And we all add to that–
Who has been a total milquetoast, who has waffled, danced, and generally avoided making any decision at all. Why did he even ask for a “consensus” among the businesses “affected” when the role of the FCC is to protect the people who own the spectrum? (All US citizens are stakeholders, not the Corporations who license use of it.) It’s not the job of the corporations involved to set policy, they’re the ones supposedly being regulated! The fix is in, folks . . .
There really isn’t any constituency, group, company, or person who can grasp or comprehend the ‘Internet’ and the digital reality of modern media and communications. It has nothing to do with being hip, cool, a genius, or a billionaire. In the 1980s we started seeing a lot of private law insinuating itself into the way we do business in the forms of licensing agreements, terms of service, terms of agreement, and so forth. We didn’t protest then. Remember when you couldn’t install your Microsoft product on more than one computer? Remember when some professors at an academic conference at the University of Pittsburgh were prepared to describe their digital code which would undermine the copy-protect code in/on digital media (like CDs and DVDs), and they were threatened with lawsuits, so they withdrew their papers and didn’t present it? (They did publish their paper on the INternet the following day.) The DMCA was a hurried (and Draconian) response to digital anarchy and mayhem, and it’s bad law. But private law and bad law have prevailed, presumably because ‘the public’ don’t really give a flying fig as long as ‘product’ and ‘content’ are always available.
Who knows what’s up? A few years ago Google had a seat on Apple’s corporate board; then it left. Before that Sony asked Apple to partner. My AT&T service tech told me that he heard Apple originally tried to get Verizon to sign on for the exclusive iPhone wireless carriage, but Verizon or Apple bailed out.
Remember the rumors about Microsoft’s embedding code in its products so it could know if you were stealing as an unauthorized user? In the late 1990s Macintouch published a report of an incident (one of many similar incidents) when a Fortune 500 CEO had been found to have an unauthorized version of MS Word on his office PC. One of his assistants installed it from a lawfully obtained version, innocently believing everything was perfectly kosher and harmless. But it violated the license and its terms of agreement, which had been agreed to with a mouse click. Ordinarily, who cares? Microsoft informed the CEO, the CEO met with his board, everyone agreed it would be a disaster if it got out that the CEO had stolen software like a common thief and wretched hacker, or didn’t observe the terms of agreement and violated them with arrogant contempt. So the board agreed to a long-term $50 million contract with Microsoft in return for Microsoft’s letting the matter be forgotten.
Like I wrote up top, no one knows what to do. What they do know is that there are more genius hackers than genius CEOs, and if they piss off enough of those genius hackers, well, who knows?
Genachowski isn’t the vote that counts; that belongs to Obamarahma.
Besides, Genachowski has to worry about how he’ll make a living after he leaves the FCC. I mean, Jesus, he’s a young guy, he’s got decades left in which he must make millions. Cut the guy some slack. He’ll only sell us out for his own good, and we need to be understanding.
The false “Dem vs. Repub” dichotomy has nothing to do with this and it is a distraction from the real problem.
Do not further encourage the Obama partisans in their foolishness.
Call the corporate sellouts exactly what they are.
And please try to understand what the Democratic leadership has been trying to hammer into us since 2006…
… that servicing the oligarchs is not a mistake nor is it some kind of a misunderstanding, instead it is now and has been for some time the official Democratic policy.
Obama would be the last person to issue any decrees on morality over the internet or any where else. He is a constitutional lawyer and he very well know the rights of americans under the contstitution. On the contrary, it is the tea baggers in cohorts with republican Fox news and the RNC with the christian right extremists who want to turn this young democracy into a christian theocracy.
When will they come to a decision?
By the way, David, your article here is the front page, leading story on Huffington Post.
wooHoo!
Just thought he might like to know. Hey, it’s only just an extra few million eyeballs that will end up reading his well-written article.
Kind of a nice thing to know about, I think…
I must say that one is being incredibly naive if they think that the Republicans don’t share equally in this situation. They both are in the pockets of Oligarchs and Corporations. As far as it being the Official position of the Democratic Party, again there are far MORE Republicans who are beholden to Corporations and Oligarchs.
It seems that you’ve not been keeping up with current events.
Obama plays a “default morality” card whenever he wants too… just ask the LGBT community about the multitude of knives in their backs… the ones with the scriptural engravings…
Obama the “constitutional scholar” has been using the Constitution for toilet paper ever since he hit the Oval Office… see Wheeler, Hamsher et al… and the only reason he wouldn’t invoke a “morality clause” for such internet control is that it is not needed. All he needs is the corporate media telling people what to think… and he has that.
But even if he for some reason chose to exercise such direct control all of the needed administrative components for that control have already been put in place for his use at will.
Seconded.
By any chance are you trying to say “It’s okay because the Repubs are doing it too!”… … … ?
All the Repub sellouts in the world don’t mean a damn thing when it’s the Dem sellouts that are in control of the White House and in control of the Senate and in control of the House.
The point being that the Repub sellouts aren’t the problem here. The Dem sellouts are the problem here.
… so why would anyone attempt to distract from the actual problem at hand by dragging up a Repub boogyman?
Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse: “The proposal is one massive loophole that sets the stage for the corporate takeover of the Internet.”
Action: Boycotts of Google’s search engine (and/or advertisements). Pledge to use another search engine (and stick to it) from now on, until Google changes its stance. This will take time. But, if enough people make the move, it will get results.
Boycott Google: Save Net Neutrality
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Boycott-Google-Save-Net-Neutrality/104968046227755?ref=mf
Hmm. Say something to lefties and everybody says, “The REAL problem is…”, and then, “But this can’t happen because the game’s rigged.”
I think the underlying problem in wireless is that we deeded the damn spectrum to them as private property. We SOLD it, remember? And then we didn’t insist that they all build one compatible network. We should do that, immediately. The reason they give for throttling internet use is limited spectrum. Well, “the network” isn’t limited, just their network in, say, San Francisco. The omnipresent network was intentionally crippled by setting up stupid, anti-competitive rules that are guaranteed annual income streams for some very lazy corporations. We need to regulate a more cooperative, omnipresent wireless network. You would buy any phone you want, and then a plan. They would compete by price, how good their network is in your area, and extra services they could sell you. Like the Internet, the rule should be that the closest tower picks up the call and the money for it. If it’s not their call, the networks do what Internet providers do: they pass it off to the network whose phone it came from. This will make the profit margins lower, and the claim is that this will mean, “We can’t innovate unless we can make money.” They’ll be able to make steady money, as long as they keep putting up towers so they can get the first call status — and cutting the incredibly inefficient business bureaucracy that exists in AT&T, for example.
In the beginning were the railroads, and there were a number of gauges our first railroads used. That system was wiped out, and we got the transcontinental railroad. We need to combine all our networks so they can truly compete for the most “first towers.”
I don’t have to say why this will be difficult to make happen.
Fantastic bit of obfuscation… except that attempting to label everyone who recognizes and objects to the Dem sellouts as a “lefty” and then trying to put words in their mouths is no more helpful in solving the problem than is trying to blame it all on the Repubs.
As for the semi-technical barrage… attempting to obscure the fact that the mobile apps intend to hook into and make use of the same internet as the rest of us isn’t helpful either.
But I’m sure the telcos would love it… in fact they’ve already stated that they love it…
Look folks, everytime we turn around we see more damage to our society being done by large corporations. Stop working for these criminal operations, stop encouraging people to work for them, and stop buying from them. Remember how they ruined farming in America? We now have small farms making a comeback. We can do it, and Al Franken will keep us entertained along the way.
The internet is open and operating under the principles of
net neutrality ALREADY. It could not be freer. It’s maddening to hear people squealing for the FCC to control delivery on the internet implying that only then will it be free! The only thing government control “opens” is the danger of censorship, propaganda, mismanagement, taxes and transfer of yet another free and privately owned asset to Obama’s chosen special interests. How does Obama get his bots to believe that increased government regulation and control is “freer”??? I guess it’s the same ones who actually believed his health care reform would not be government control, would lower costs, extend Medicare 12 years (in spite of cutting it $585 billion) with no loss of benefits, preserve current insurance and doctors, not ration and improve quality – all of which are demonstrably false!
With limited broadband spectrum, traffic has to be managed on occasion to insure all customers have access. Allowing streaming video to hog the road on a “first come first serve” basis will adversely affect the access of all others. Expanding the available
spectrum is the ONLY thing necessary for total net neutrality.
Control by the FCC, which can not be trusted to govern “lightly”,
would be the opposite of neutrality. Because of the unholy
duplicity of this administration, I am beginning to believe the
Google/Verizon deal is a sham to force opponents of the FCC’s proposed changes to agree to them. The bots employed this
very same ploy with the Goldman Sachs/SEC case, which you
might remember was settled just an hour after the FinReg bill
passed. It’s beyond my ability to understand how anyone with
the freedom and opportunity of this country would want unelected
bureaucrats controlling every important aspect of life. They are
already pulling the strings on health care, finance, autos, mortgages, energy, immigration, air, water, etc. -I’d like to keep
the internet OUT OF their hands and irrepressibly free.
See how butch the corporations are getting?
Now they think they can bypass Congress to screw US. Really says alot that these two giant corpartions think they have the power to divvy up what the people of the world have built.
It also tells me how very corporate friendly our president is. I think everyone (esp The Corporation) found out during HCR
Talk about arrogance!
Wow! that really opened my eyes.
It’s sorta of like the catfood commission, they can’t leave anything alone…you’re right.
I’m more propagandized than I think I am. URrrrrGGGHH, I hate when that happens…it’s like hooks in the registry
By Bast’s furry ears… a genuine Randian rampage of almost Galt-like proportions :)
It’s been a while since I’ve listened to a reality break of such magnitude…
… too bad the foundations of your dreamlike fairy castle of a social model depend on the myth of each and every business being run by an everywoman instead of the reality of immensely wealthy oligarchs hiding behind immensely powerful corporations and insisting on all the perquisites of governing bodies while decrying even the possibility of any hint of equivalent responsibilities…
This is the last link in the plan for total full spectrum Corporatist dominance, do any of u really believe they’re going to accept anything else now? So called Net Neutrality is as dead a door nail as the Public Option was. In a few yrs. we’ll have nowhere to go but Corp. managed websites to complain and you can guess how that will all work out.
I’m not using “lefty” as anything but a descriptive. I’m a lefty.
The reform of the wireless providers, and the underlying networks, is very much the problem. Calling it a semi-technical “barrage” really isn’t an argument. The point is, our networks are mutually incompatible. This forces the consumer to choose between networks, and it allows the various networks to tie certain phones to their networks. This is an open invitation to monopolism, and not by evil Apple or evil Google — by Verizon, AT&T &c.
I don’t exactly understand that you say that the apps want to hook into the same internet as wired — of course they do. But the wireless providers, of their natures, act in a dictatorial way. I think that Verizon, AT&T, etc., have too much power in this equation.
Let’s see, what about the wired Internet. Which company provides that? Why, all of them!
Compare us to Australia. They have a much more closely regulated wireless network. They have three or four competing companies, all on the same standard protocol. No CDMA/GSM crap.
You seem to be unaware that you are going off on an unrelated tangent here.
The Google-Verizon plan to gut net neutrality (with the willing cooperation of the Obama administration) does not limit itself to wireless in the slightest and does severely screw over the regulatory powers of the FCC in that regard… all the while proclaiming the exact opposite.
It has everything to do with the internet and nothing to do with wireless plans.
Whether you are aware of it or not your whole spiel is a meaningless distraction and implementing your ideas wouldn’t even change what the corporations have planned for the rest of us in this regard.
I’ve got as much suspicion of corporate control and subversive agendas as anyone…. but you better get back on your meds buddy.