Thanks to your hundreds of emails and phone calls, and the hundred-plus people we helped mobilize to testify in person in Sacramento, the members of the California Senate’s Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee took the time to seriously address our concerns with the bill. On Tuesday 6/27, after hearing three hours of testimony from our coalition members, expressing concern or opposition to the bill, the Committee set a second hearing for Thursday. At this second hearing on 6/29, the Senators made substantial amendments to the bill and voted unanimously to send it to the Appropriations Committee.
THE GOOD:
Community media: The Committee expressed a commitment to protect community media and delegated further discussion of the issue to Senator Joe Simitian, who is our ally on these issues.
Buildout / Redlining: A timetable for robust buildout of a fiber infrastructure was established. AT&T will no longer be able to claim that providing satellite TV service to low-income communities is equivalent to providing fiber to affluent communities.
THE BAD:
Cable joins the other side: The cable companies joined the deal after being promised the possibility of abrogating their cable franchises. You can rest assured that Comcast's many lobbyists will now join AT&T’s lobbyists to bend the bill to suit their corporate interests at the expense of our California communities.
OTHER:
Many other amendments were introduced as well, too numerous to mention here. The devil, as always, is in the details. As amendments get crafted and worked in, we must remain vigilant and we must keep the pressure up.
SOME OF THE VOICES OF THE WEEK:
“The bottom line is this bill, as it is currently, kills public access in California. What’s even more problematic is those deliberating don’t have any understanding or appreciation for the importance of public access,” said Martin Anaya, executive director of Pacifica Community Television.
Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Garden Grove: 'Through competition, we will get a better deal on price.' ... The problem I have is, those were words of (former Enron Corp. chairman) Ken Lay. So I'm dubious."
Senate Committee Chair Martha Escutia, D-Norwalk on the energy deregulation debacle: "There are a lot of members here who took that vote in 1996, me being one of them. The last thing I want is for this to be labeled the energy debacle of 2006."
Senator Escutia again: "This is a high-stakes game. I've been having nightmares on this bill."
Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Culver City: "It's only competition if they invest in your community. I'd like people to be able to spend, you know, $5 less for Nickelodeon, but I'm more concerned about people having access to the Internet."
Stopping the Big Giveaway
By John Kerry, for SavetheInternet.com
June 30th, 2006
Yesterday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn’t get the job done.
It looks like that’s the fight we’re going to have.
The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer.
It will not stand.
I voted against this lousy bill for two reasons: because net neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society, and both were pushed aside by the Republicans.
Everyone says they don’t want the new world we’re living in to be marked by the digital divide — the term is so clichéd it’s turned to mush — but yesterday was a test of who is willing to ask corporate America to do anything to fix it, and the Commerce Committee failed miserably. Why are United States Senators afraid to say that companies should be expected to foster growth by building out their broadband networks to increase access?
Free and open access to the internet is something all Americans should enjoy, regardless of what financial means they’re born into or where they live. It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. That is a dynamic that would leave some communities with inferior service, higher cable rates, and even the loss of service. Not to mention inadequate internet service — in the age of the information.
This bill was passed in committee over our objections. Now we need to fight to either fix it or kill it in the full Senate. Senator Wyden has already drawn a line in the sand — putting a “hold” on the bill, which prevents it from going forward for now. But there will be a day of reckoning on this legislation soon, make no mistake about it, and we need you to get engaged — pressure your Senators, follow the issue, demand net neutrality and build-out.
Personal information isn't that confidential;
Experts weigh in on AT&T's assertion that it owns your data
By David Lazarus, SF Chronicle
Friday, June 23, 2006
In its new privacy policy taking effect today, AT&T asserts for the first time that customers' personal data are "business records that are owned by AT&T" and that "AT&T may disclose such records to protect its legitimate business interests, safeguard others, or respond to legal process."
So does AT&T own your confidential info? Legal experts say yes. And no.
"Saying they own your information is vague and imprecise," said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA who focuses on privacy and intellectual property cases.
"They don't own it like they have a copyright," he said. "What they're actually saying is that they have a right to disclose it."
In Wednesday's column, I spelled out how AT&T's new policy differs from its former privacy policy, and how the new wording appears to give the company more latitude when it comes to sharing customer info with government authorities.
AT&T is one of several leading telecom companies that reportedly allowed the National Security Agency warrantless access to its voice and data networks as part of the Bush administration's war on terror.
"Our privacy policy speaks for itself," John Britton, an AT&T spokesman, said Thursday. "It fully complies with all legal requirements for disclosure of our privacy practices."
The company's new policy for Internet and video customers says that "while your account information may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T."
It says: "We may also use your information in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud (or) situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person."
Legal experts say the policy represents a contract with customers, and that AT&T apparently does have the right to share customers' data as it sees fit.
"This is a privacy policy in the sense that it's a policy and it's related to privacy," said UCLA's Volokh. "But it's not a policy that promises a great deal of privacy."
Paul Goldstein, a law professor at Stanford University specializing in intellectual property, said consumers basically relinquish control over their personal info when they willingly enter into a business relationship with a company.
"The question is whether the information is given up with any expectation of confidentiality," he said.
"When I read (AT&T's) policy as a lawyer, I say that there's no expectation of privacy here," Goldstein observed. "But that's not the correct standard to apply. The correct standard is how a non-legally trained person reads it."
AT&T's new policy is prefaced with a declaration that "conducting business ethically and ensuring privacy is critical to maintaining the public's trust and achieving success in a dynamic and competitive business climate."
It also says that "subsidiaries and affiliates of AT&T Inc. (the 'AT&T family of companies') understand that the trust of our customers necessitates vigilant, responsible privacy protections."
UCLA's Volokh said the language here is markedly different from the more explicit statements that follow about how customers' data can be used.
"What's missing?" he asked. "Words like 'we promise' or 'we will' or 'we agree to.' They're just saying here that privacy is generally important."
For this reason, both he and Goldstein said that any reasonable person reading AT&T's privacy policy in its entirety would likely understand that he or she is being guaranteed little privacy.
Both men also concluded that customers who stick with AT&T have little recourse in the event that their personal info is shared with government officials.
Or do they? One chink in the telecom giant's armor may lie in the words "account information."
AT&T states in its new privacy policy that "while your account information (emphasis added) may be personal to you, these records constitute business records that are owned by AT&T." It defines account information separately as contact info, billing info or information about the equipment you use.
AT&T is being sued by San Francisco's Electronic Frontier Foundation for allegedly providing the NSA with warrantless access to its data network, including customers' e-mail.
By AT&T's own definition, the contents of e-mail would not be considered account information and therefore would appear to fall outside the records that the company claims ownership of.
But AT&T goes on to make the broader declaration that "we may also use your information (emphasis added) in order to investigate, prevent, or take action regarding illegal activities, suspected fraud (or) situations involving potential threats to the physical safety of any person."
Consumer advocates interpret this to mean that AT&T has opened the door to disclosing virtually any customer data under terror-related circumstances, such as the NSA's warrantless spying.
But Lawrence Townsend, a San Francisco attorney specializing in intellectual property, said it's unclear what AT&T means by using customers' information in the above circumstances.
Is the company still talking about account information, or is it now referring to all data?
In cases where ambiguity exists, Townsend said, courts almost always favor the least problematical interpretation.
"It's self-evident that there's ambiguity here," he said. "They've led consumers to believe that this may only be account information, so a court would interpret this ambiguity in favor of consumers. That's basic contract law."
Meanwhile, what can AT&T customers do if they choose to distance themselves from AT&T? Dozens of readers have put that question to me since Wednesday's column ran.
Short answer: Not all that much.
There are other local and long-distance companies (Working Assets, for example), but they often rely on AT&T's network to get calls through or have policies similar to AT&T's.
The same goes for DSL Internet access and even cell phones -- other providers, AT&T's network.
Michael Shames, executive director of the Utility Consumers' Action Network in San Diego, said the only way to truly escape a phone company is to switch to Internet phone services offered by cable providers.
"The cable companies have their own networks," he observed. "They never meet the phone companies' networks."
(For most Bay Area residents, that would mean signing up with cable heavyweight Comcast, which says in its privacy policy for voice services that the company "may disclose the names and addresses of subscribers for 'mailing list' or other purposes," or as "required by law or legal process.")
Shames said he wouldn't be surprised if all other telecom outfits, including cable companies, follow AT&T's example and claim outright ownership of customers' data.
"If AT&T is doing it," he said, "it's just a matter of time before every telecommunications provider is doing it."
June 23rd, 2006
by Tim Karr
Communities across the United States should take note of what the FCC is doing and speak out before the federal agency allows the conglomerates to “gobble up” more local media, writes Ryan Blethen of the Seattle Times.
In a Times editorial Friday, Blethen calls on Americans of every persuasion to demand that the FCC hears their concerns about big media control of local news and information:
“Write your congressmen. Write your senators. Go to the public meetings the FCC plans to hold around the country. Tell the FCC to ensure that your press stays independent. If your newspaper or TV station is not covering this issue, ask the editor or producer why not.
“It is time to panic. Our democracy will only suffer if the bland, monolithic media machine is allowed to suck up more press outlets.”
Earlier in the week, a Seattle Times editorial called upon the FCC to have hearings across the country. “Let them come here, and this community will give them an earful,” the paper wrote.
In fact, a public hearing starring at least two FCC commissioners is set for June 28 in Asheville, North Carolina. The event – the first of its kind since the FCC announced its plans to rewrite ownership rules on Wednesday – is being facilitated by StopBigMedia.com coordinator Free Press, in partnership with local activists and media reform groups.
“We’re going to do more studies and more hearings than have been done before,” FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told reporters on Wednesday. “We’re going to have a longer comment period, so we’re going to try to seek greater public input.”
We need to watch Martin closely and hold him to this commitment. It’s clear who he’s been listening to in the debate over concentration. He has supported eliminating the three-decade-old flat ban on television-newspaper cross-ownership and in April called on newspaper publishers to join him to help justify the repeal.
When in 2003, Martin’s predecessor Michael Powell faced broad public opposition to further media consolidation, his response was to attend no further public hearings. This time around Martin can’t pull a “Powell” and close his office to the concerns of the people he really represents.
6/21/06, The Huffington Post
From the Folks Who Are Giving Away Your Internet, More Media Concentration
Your Federal Communications Commission - which in the name of the "public interest" eliminated Net Neutrality and turned control of the Internet over to the big telecom and cable companies - announced today it is ready to do you yet another service. This time, FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin, again in the name of the "public interest," is proposing to eliminate or weaken long-standing rules that prevent local newspapers, television and radio stations (and their websites) from all merging together to dominate and decimate local communities' media, a move likely to set off yet another feeding frenzy of media consolidation.
Unfortunately, these local media conglomerations, all suddenly combined and controlled by a single owner, would operate at the expense of free expression, diversity, democracy, and culture which, according to the First Amendment and the Supreme Court, depend upon "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail" - a marketplace where there is a "wide diversity of viewpoints from a multiplicity of sources."
Even Wall Street, which demanded and eagerly financed the last round of arranged media marriages, now disavows its old claims that these mergers create "efficiency" and "synergy." Investors who bought that bill of goods have been burned badly as the promised benefits never materialized, the conglomerated companies meandered and floundered, and their stock prices tanked. Even the President of Time Warner, the poster child for failed "synergy" after its disastrous hookup with AOL, now proclaims that "Synergy is Bullshit." De-consolidation has already taken place at Viacom/CBS and Knight-Ridder, and empire-building managements are under attack from angry shareholders at Tribune and Time Warner.
Big newspaper mogul William Dean Singleton, former Chair of the Newspaper Association of America, just today proclaimed that the newspaper business is "still a very, very, very profitable piece of what we do and will be for a long, long time." So that guts the argument that these rules need to be lifted to save "dying" businesses.
And now, our research indicates there may be a link between the increasing takeover of locally-owned media by absentee-owner national conglomerates and the increasing public complaints about objectionable content on the airwaves.
So this would be in the "public interest?"
But why should we care who owns the Old Media Dinosaur when it's on the verge of extinction? There's always the Internet, right? Wrong. The vast majority of Americans still get their news, information, and entertainment via the Old Media of newspapers, television, and radio. And when it comes to getting local news, Internet users overwhelmingly surf to the websites of local newspapers, TV and radio stations. Putting all those local community Old and New Media news and information sources under one management - a management that likely will no longer be local - is a genuinely bad and dangerous idea. While you may hear many local voices, it will like be just one out-of-town ventriloquist.
And while you and I are here on the Net having a swell time now, how long will that last given the Commission's elimination of Net Neutrality? That gives control of your web-surfing to Big Cable and Big Telco broadband providers, who can then sell it to the highest bidder. Which may well be your local community's media monopoly.
In 2003, when then- FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell first gutted these same rules, he was roundly ripped by not just the usual suspects, but by his fellow conservative Republicans. As Brent Bozell of the Parents Television Council then memorably quipped, "When so many disparate organizations -- groups ranging from the Catholic Conference to Common Cause, from the Family Research Council and the NRA to Move On, the Writers Guild and NOW -- when all of us are united on an issue, then one of two things has happened. Either the earth has spun off its axis and we have all lost our minds, or there is universal support for a concept." Turns out we hadn't lost our minds. Rather there was universal support for this concept: "Protect Free Expression, Diverse and Independent Voices, and Democracy. Stop the FCC."
Eventually, the fired-up and pissed-off grassroots deluged the Commission with over 3 million protests, which makes today's inflated indecency complaint numbers the FCC itself is so fond of citing to justify its fines seem downright puny. But this is media ownership, not indecency. By a party-line 3-2 vote, the Commission rebuffed the protests and lifted its long-standing media ownership limits, as it planned from the start.
The public was left to challenge in court the Commission's dubious contribution to the "public interest." Ultimately - fortunately - but perhaps not surprisingly -- the U.S. Court of Appeals found the FCC's actions "arbitrary and capricious" and overturned them.
So here we go again, as now-Chairman Martin tries to succeed where then-Chairman Powell failed. Martin has learned a lesson from his predecessor's failure. As FCC Commissioners Adelstein and Copps have repeatedly requested, he has scheduled a series of public hearings across the country. Hopefully, all the Commissioners will use these hearings to gain a better understanding of the damage that increasing media concentration inflicts on our nation's communities, democracy and culture.
If they do listen, and keep an open mind, then perhaps they won't repeat the mistakes of 2003 and once again cook up new rules behind closed doors with their Big Media lobbyist sous-chefs that only serve the interests of the empire-building media conglomerates, while decimating diverse and independent media outlets in local communities.
That is something the public has no interest in.
Following the June 8th defeat of Net Neutrality protections in the U.S. House, the future of the Internet now rests with the Senate. An important Committee vote is June 22nd, debate will continue throughout the summer.
Without these protections, which existed throughout the history of the Internet until last year, the openness and innovation we've come to count on will be a thing of the past. Big Cable and Big Phone will be exerting their gatekeeper status at an unprecedented level.
ACTION: Senator Boxer has come out strongly in favor of Net Neutrality, but California's other Senator, Dianne Feinstein is still uncommitted. Call Feinstein's office today and let her know how important Net Neutrality protections are to you.
DC: (202) 224-3841
SF: (415) 393-0707 - it's better to call the DC office
Cox Cable has already fired the first shot, blocking its customers from accessing Craigslist.
Why?
(a) Because Cox has its own listings it wants to feature;
(b) Because they can...Net Neutrality protections ended last year, which is why we need them reinstated now.
We need the Senate to take a stand in the fight to preserve Net Freedom.
ACTION: Senator Boxer has come out strongly in favor of Net Neutrality, but California's other Senator, Dianne Feinstein is still uncommitted. This is totally unacceptable. Call Feinstein's office today and let her know how important Net Neutrality protections are to you.
DC: (202) 224-3841
SF: (415) 393-0707 - it's better to call the DC office
BACKGROUND on NET NEUTRALITY:
What's NN and why should I care?
Davey D on why the hip hop community should care
By Michael Copps, FCC Commissioner
June 20, 2006
[Note: The excellent editorial below was written on the eve of the FCC's 6/21 launch of a new attempt to loosen Media Ownership Rules and allow more mergers, increasing consolidation and decreasing local ownership and media diversity.]
Americans have always been crazy for news. When Alexis de Tocqueville toured the nations back roads nearly two centuries ago, he marvelled at the astonishing circulation of letters and newspapers among these savage woods. De Tocqueville chalked this up to our uniquely local politics. Under a centralised government, a handful of national newspapers might have been enough. But America offered the utmost national freedom combined with local freedom of every kind.
Today, the US is richer and more powerful than when de Tocqueville visited. But do we still have media capable of keeping democracy strong? Not by a long shot. Newspaper competition has died in most cities and towns. Radio, television and the internet have replaced them but these are primarily national, not local, and geared towards selling products through entertainment. In the last off-year elections, more than half of local newscasts contained no campaign coverage at all.
Why and how has this happened? A leading culprit is the staggering consolidation among communications companies in recent years. A handful of conglomerates now controls nearly all the mainstream media. An even smaller group of network providers controls internet access. These two trends are not typically thought to be related. But both are attempts at stifling competition by seizing control of content and distribution.
It is pretty easy to see how media consolidation smothers local news. It is a lot cheaper to develop a single slate of national content and ship it off to local television and radio outlets. But local news and community events are democracys lifeblood. Economists have documented, for example, that when stations provide Spanish-language local news, voter turnout among Spanish speakers increases significantly.
Even worse is the trend of cross-ownership, where the local television station also buys up radio stations and the local newspaper. This gives one company far too much influence in a community. It also removes anyincentive for one part of a media empire to compete for customers by outdoing the others.
The dangers of internet consolidation may be less obvious but are equally troubling. Today, the internet is a ray of hope for those of us who care about the ideals de Tocqueville described. Just look at the new crop of political blogs having such an impact on both sides of the aisle. The tragedy is that, in a consolidated world, a handful of broadband barons is poised to destroy what is so precious about the internet. The danger arises because one or two companies (telephone and cable) provide the last mile internet connection to virtually all American homes.
These companies are already talking about extracting fees from anyone who wants to reach their millions of customers. That translates into an internet dominated by the big companies that can afford to pay. Already, virtually all of the top 20 internet news sites are owned by the usual suspects. When independent voices and innovators have to pay large sums just to get through to you and me, the problem is only going to get worse. It might be clever business strategy, but it would be terrible for our democracy.
The really scary part is that matters could get much worse. Today, the Federal Communications Commission will begin a wholesale revision of the nations media ownership rules. These limit how many television stations, radio stations and newspapers one company can own in a single market. Three years ago, against my objections, the FCC tried radically to loosen its rules. Thankfully, a federal court sent these ill-advised rules back to us. Now we have a second chance to get them right. But it will take concerted citizen action to check big medias hunger for still more consolidation.
As for the internet, we desperately need so-called net neutrality rules. These would prohibit broadband providers from giving preferential treatment to information and data based upon its source. The creators of the open internet never envisaged it being littered with gates and toll-booths. Anyone expecting the internet to reverse media consolidation should understand that it is heading down the very same road.
The fight against consolidation is not liberal versus conservative or red state versus blue. It is a grassroots, all-American campaign to preserve the very democracy that de Tocqueville saw in America. Every citizen is a stakeholder in the outcome and every citizen should be part of the decision-making.
Michale Copps is one of five Commissioners of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
June 15, 2006
Yesterday AT&T came out with a statement announcing a three-year, $100 million program to provide Internet access to [some] low-income families. According to reports, the program will provide subsidized computer equipment and two years of free Internet access to 15,000 Habitat for Humanity households. It will provide two years of free Internet access to an additional 35,000 households.
That's the good news.... unfortunately we don't see in the report any mention of AT&T's lobbying in Sacramento to weaken existing legal protections against redlining. In the most important California telecommunications bill in years, AT&T is pushing for a law that includes no monitoring of discriminatory practices, no enforcement of anti-discriminatory infractions, and no timeline to build out the Internet infrastructure for all Californians, both rich and poor.
How many thousands of working families will be left behind in California alone?
Corporate philanthropy is good, indeed necessary. But it cannot replace sound public policies that protect all Californians.
-- Sydney Levy, Media Alliance
June 15, 2006
Hip-hop's next big stop: Capitol Hill
By Davey D, San Jose Mercury News
Friday marks what would have been the 35th birthday of slain rapper Tupac Amaru Shakur, and this year is the 10th anniversary of his death.
With more than 40 million albums sold, the vast majority after his murder, Tupac remains a revered figure around the world. Unfortunately, the mainstream media highlight his thug persona to the point that many forget Tupac was the son of a Black Panther and a well-read, politically astute artist. In fact, shortly before his death, he had set in motion a plan to encourage fans to become engaged in politics.
Tupac did not believe one should just go to the polls, cast a vote and call it a day. He believed one's vote was a way to ``chin check'' politicians who hadn't done right by the community. Shortly before his murder, Tupac held a press conference with Snoop Dogg and MC Hammer to announce plans for politicizing the 6 million fans who had bought his last album. Snoop and Hammer intended to do the same with their fans.
Those plans did not arise in a vacuum. Earlier, Tupac had called for action against the Berkeley City Council, which had declared a moratorium on rap concerts in its city after a violent incident at the Berkeley Community Theater. Artists and fans showed up en masse at a council meeting to demand a reversal of the decision. A Digital Underground member warned that the group already had made history by getting more than 2 million people to do the Humpty Dance and that it would be a shame if it had to make history again by urging fans to vote the council out of office.
The moratorium was lifted, and as a result of that incident, some Berkeley law students formed one of hip-hop's first political-action groups, GRIP, the Group for Rap Industry Protection. It put together a well-thought-out paper on security at hip-hop concerts, which was instrumental in getting a similar concert ban lifted at Oakland's Henry J. Kaiser Convention Center.
Now members of the hip-hop community can honor Tupac's political legacy by informing themselves and fighting an insidious congressional bill quietly being pushed by large telecommunications companies such as Verizon, AT&T and Comcast. It would put an end to the ``Net neutrality'' that allows Internet users to go seamlessly from one Web site to any other. With Net neutrality, broadband operators were prevented from charging to have content and services prioritized over their systems, and the little guy with something to say on a blog was able to compete with a giant news outlet, because he was just as accessible.
Last week, a big blow to that concept was delivered with a 321-101 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives for the disingenuously named Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act. To make matters worse, the House voted 269-152 to kill the Markey Amendment, which would have kept Net neutrality intact.
What does all this have to do with hip-hop? Over the past few years, hundreds of independent recording artists who couldn't break into commercial radio's homogenized playlists used the Internet to reach an audience. They did quite well for themselves, moving product and merchandise and launching tours on the Internet. That all could change if Net neutrality goes away.
And why did the House vote overwhelming against it? For starters, telecommunications companies have been spending close to $1 million a day to lobby Congress, making a complex issue seem even more complicated. The Net neutrality rallying cry was ``Save the Internet.'' The telecommunications companies used the slogan ``Hands off the Internet,'' meaning they don't want government regulation. Both camps have been calling for a ``free'' Internet.
For more on this issue, check out my ``Open Letter to Hip-Hop'' at www.mercury news.com/entertainment; and ``Save the Internet'' at www.savetheinternet.com/.
June 14, 2006
Capitol Hill Event Gathers Broad Bipartisan Support for the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act"
WASHINGTON -- The SavetheInternet.com Coalition today delivered more than 1 million petitions and letters from average Americans to Capitol Hill, urging Congress to protect Net Neutrality and stand firm against efforts by phone and cable companies to control the Internet.
At a press conference on Capitol Hill, Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) called upon their colleagues to heed the public outcry and support the "Internet Freedom and Preservation Act" (S. 2917), a bipartisan bill that would bar companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking, degrading or interfering with content or services on the Internet.
"The idea that brings us together is a free and unfettered Internet," said Senator Snowe. "It’s vital we preserve, not undermine, the extraordinarily democratic technological network - over which content providers from the largest corporations in the biggest cities in the world to single individuals in rural towns have equal opportunity to reach millions of Internet users."
"It’s essential that we preserve Internet freedom," said Senator Dorgan. "The open architecture which now exists, and which allows everyone fair access to any site on the Internet, without gatekeepers, must be preserved. That is what our bill would do - preserve Internet freedom, which is at the very core of what makes the Internet so important, and something that enriches the lives of millions of Americans."
The million petition signatures and letters were collected via the SavetheInternet.com Coalition Web site and by members of the coalition, including Free Press, Media Alliance, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Common Cause, Consumers Union, True Majority and Working Assets.
"Net Neutrality has allowed the Internet to become the new public square, where everyday people can participate in our democracy and have their voices heard,” said Joan Blades, the co-founder of MoveOn.org. “We cannot let the Internet gatekeepers decide who gets into the public square -- everyone from MoveOn to the Christian Coalition should get in, so the best ideas can thrive based on their merit. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition will intensify our grassroots pressure on the Senate to assure that Internet freedom is preserved and Net Neutrality remains the law of the land.”
Blades was joined at the press conference by fellow coalition member Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition of America, who told reporters: "We’re committed to working on behalf of our supporters to ensure that the Internet remains the free marketplace of ideas, products, and services that it is today. We urge the Senate to move aggressively to save the Internet and allow ideas to thrive on the World Wide Web, and we will do our part to make certain our supporters get that message."
The more than 750 groups in the SavetheInternet.com Coalition include the National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, Educause, Gun Owners of America, Future of Music Coalition, Parents Television Council, the ACLU, and every major consumer group in the nation. The coalition also includes the founders of the Internet, hundreds of small companies that do business online, and thousands of bloggers.
"More than 1 million Americans are speaking out today on behalf of Internet freedom,” said Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, which coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. “Yet Congress still could cave to corporate pressure by rewriting laws and handing over control of the Internet to corporations like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. The Senate must step in to defend the Internet from gatekeepers who plan to tax innovation and throttle the free market."
###
The SavetheInternet.com Coalition is a grassroots, nonpartisan alliance of hundreds of groups, thousands of bloggers, and more than a million concerned Americans who have joined together to protect Internet freedom and Network Neutrality. No corporation or political party funds the coalition. Statements by the SavetheInternet.com Coalition are not necessarily endorsed by every participating organization.
By Tom Foremski for Silicon Valley Watcher
Is this what the loss of net neutrality will bring?
A Silicon Valley Watcher reader left this tip:
I use Cox cable internet, Cox's media empire printed classifieds is
one of their big revenue drivers. Guess what? If you try to access
Craigslist over Cox Cable internet... its nearly impossible! It
appears that they throttle access to craigslist - as a matter of
fact there have been a zillion complaints but hey, who can blame
Cox? They're trying to stop the opening cap in their money dam!
Maybe you should investigate this tip further. Cheers
I did investigate further, I walked out of my apartment and across
Alamo Square and popped in on Jim Buckmaster, the CEO of Craigslist.
Jim was just getting back from work and I spoke with Susan Best,
publicist for Craigslist. Susan said they have known about the problem
with Cox.
Jim soon arrived and said the problem of access had been going on
since late February. It had something to do with the security software
that Cox isusing from a company called Authentium.
Cox has been collaborating with Authentium since April 2005 to develop
the security software suite.
Back on February 23rd Authentium acknowledged that their software is
blocking Craigslist but it still hasn't fixed the problem, more than
three months later. That's a heck of long time to delete some text
from their blacklist. And this company also supplies security software
to other large ISPs.
Craigslist has approached Authentium several times to get it to stop
blocking access by Cox internet users but it has been unresponsive.
Jim wasn't aware that Cox had its own classified ads service. "That
changes things, " he said.
This situation does not look good in the context of the net neutrality
debate. This is exactly the kind of scenario that many people are
concerned about, that the cable companies and the telcos will make it
difficult for their internet users to access competing services.
Here are Craigslists' system reports: If you scroll down you can see
the Cox problem, and there are quite a few problems with others too:
email with SBC, and also with Yahoo and BT Internet. Are those
problems also related to the telcos using software that discriminates
against Craigslist?
Some more related links:
From Newspapers and Technology: Cox papers adding interactive features
to classifieds Sept 2005
Take a look at this story about Cox refusing to run AP video. Is it
fighting for open standards are is it fighting off a competitor with a
poor revenue split?
From Mark Glaser's MediaShift: Cox Newspapers Says No to AP Video
Are the telcos funding an online campaign against net neutrality? Take
a look at this recent post from Mark Glaser's MediaShift: Bloggers
Must Be Vigilant Against Astroturf Comments
Here is the Cox Communications site, it's called Safe is Beautiful(!)
Here is a video sent to me by writer/director Stefano Boscutti:
SAVE THE INTERNET
June 06, 2006 | permanent link | 3 comments | tag: Future Watch
Who links to SVW? | my ZDNet blog | Fridays with Foremski at SF
Chronicle
trackbacks
trackback url:
http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/938
_______________________________________________
June 9, 2006
House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet through Passage of COPE Act;
Net Neutrality Advocates Look to Senate to Save Internet Freedom
SAN FRANCISCO — Media Alliance and other public-interest advocates today criticized last night's vote in the US House, passing the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE) without meaningful network neutrality provisions promoted by the diverse, right-left www.savetheinternet.com coalition of public interest and business groups. Media Alliance is a founding member of the coalition.
The 152 to 269 vote coincides with a massive lobbying effort by telephone companies to enter the national television market and prevent preservation of network neutrality requirements.
“Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, today’s vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation.” said Consumers Union Senior Policy Analyst, Jeannine Kenney.
"The American public favors an open and neutral Internet and does not want gatekeepers taxing innovation and throttling the free market,” said Ben Scott, Policy Director for Free Press. “The House has seriously undermined access to information and democratic communication. Despite the revisionist history propagated by the telcos and their lobbyists, until last year, the Internet had always been a neutral network. It is the central reason for its overwhelming success. This issue is not about whether or not the government will regulate the Internet. It’s about whether consumers or cable and phone companies will decide what services and content are available on the Net.”
The grass-roots coalition backing network neutrality includes more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals who have rallied in support of net neutrality at http://www.savetheinternet.com. The coalition is left and right, public and private, commercial and noncommercial. Supporters of net neutrality include the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, Media Alliance, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP, ACLU, and every major consumer group in the nation. It includes the founders of the Internet and hundreds of companies that do business online.
This is not Google vs. AT&T,” said Mark Cooper, Director of Research at Consumers Federation of America. “CFA has been battling to keep the phone companies from putting tollbooths on the Internet since the early 1980's, but now every business and every consumer that uses the Internet has a dog in the fight for Internet Freedom. This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality.”
The battle for Net Neutrality – or Internet Freedom – now moves to the Senate, where there is significantly stronger bipartisan support. Senators Snowe (R-ME) and Dorgan (D-ND) have introduced the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006” that enjoys the strong support the SaveTheInternet coalition. “