Category: broadband

Will Google, Microsoft, Yahoo! and the others Really Fight for Net Neutrality?

Word from sources in Congress say that the major companies arguing for network neutrality have failed so far to demonstrate they are seriously committed to seeing legislation passed. While the CEO’s from the Bell companies, we were told, glad-handed members of Congress, our leading online companies have been largely MIA. Here we are talking about some of the most powerful online companies, who reach tens of millions daily. Imagine if on its home pages Google, Yahoo!, and Microsoft’s MSN urged users to take action and asked them to save the Internet. Congress would be overwhelmed with angry emails and letters. The Bell/cable industry “grass-tops” faux campaign would be seen as a very minor, paid-for, outcry.

But we wonder whether Google, Microsoft and Yahoo! really want to see network neutrality legislation? They must have serious misgivings, since they have done such an incompetent and half-hearted lobbying effort so far. Certainly they are thinking about the downsides of legislation. For today’s call for network neutrality could (and should) lead to other legislative safeguards, such as protecting privacy online. Microsoft, Google, and Yahoo! fear that such privacy safeguards would threaten their interactive advertising/data collection digital golden gooses.

Yahoo! and Microsoft also have deals with many of the phone and cable companies. They and other online giants will need favorable access to their broadband lines, network neutrality or not. Perhaps it’s concern over their business relationships that have contributed to their political timidity.

So we ask. Will Google, Yahoo!, Amazon and the others make a serious stand? Did the 27-4 vote in the House Telecom Subcommittee approving the Barton-Rush broadband giveaway serve as a wake-up call? Will we see Bill Gates, Terry Semel, Larry Page/Serge Brin, Jeff Bezos and others make the rounds in D.C.? Will these mega companies unleash a torrent of ads urging Americans to help them keep the Internet an open space? Or will they silently side with AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and a few others that want to create a new form of digital divide: those that control the pipes vs. everyone else.

accrediting institutions theologica american of associationtelco alabama credit alabama unionsouth credit federal bend union aaa2007 kentucky $800 tax creditlimitation income credit adoptionutah american credit west union inamericans fair credit actloans check $5000 credit without Map

The Propaganda Channel and the Net Neutrality Debate

If you haven’t seen the “Pentagon Channel” produced by the Department of Defense, you’re missing a classic—and outrageous–propaganda effort aimed for U.S. audiences. This 24/7 “video news” network, as it calls itself, outshines even Fox News in its fealty to the official U.S. government line about Iraq. But since one of the channel’s star “talents” is Don Rumsfeld himself, it’s not surprising. What is shocking is that the U.S. is producing a channel for domestic use that is clearly propaganda—and should be taken off the many U.S. cable systems and satellite services that carry it.

With a program line-up that includes the daily “Freedom Journal Iraq” and
“Around the Services” (from the Pentagon “NewsCenter-daily…military news from top Defense officials”) to “Inside Afghanistan,” and the “Stallion Report” ( “a bi-weekly news program from Mosul, Iraq”), the Pentagon Channel airs the official view. We are all fighting for “freedom.” We are winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraq people, says one reporter for “Freedom Journal Iraq.” Scenes of “hunting bad guys,” and “missions of good will” are shown (including pictures of renovated schools displaying posters of Disney characters).

Major cable, satellite and telephone companies have given the U.S. government channel free carriage, including Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, Cox, and Echostar. The channel reaches about 12 million cable and satellite viewers; it’s also distributed in the U.S. and around the world on military bases. The channel is working to expand its distribution, including going after space reserved for public access channels (which were created to promote free speech—not governmental PR). This week the channel launched itself as a video and audio podcast via the Internet. Secretary of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld declared that he was “…pleased that we are using video casting and other increasingly important technologies to reach our global audience…”

The Voice of America is prohibited from airing its service in the U.S. The Pentagon Channel should also be similarly banned. We hope the Pentagon Channel will be scrutinized by more media critics and policymakers. Having a taxpayer-backed channel that promotes itself as “news” when it’s really about pushing an Administration’s political agenda should clearly be unacceptable policy.

But—now for the connection with network neutrality. In a world where the big cable and phone companies can dominate the U.S. broadband and TV market—expect more favorable treatment for such official government PR efforts. Whether it’s giving the Department of Defense a helping hand with its propaganda channel or turning over to the NSA and other agencies our personal communications—the big cable/telco broadband monopoly will strive to please officials. That’s where the quid pro quo deal making—let’s us control the network and we will treat you `right,’ is likely to occur. You can be sure that when Ed Whitacre of AT&T charges a Google for using what it considers its “pipes,” it will give the official view–such as the Pentagon Channel–a free, high-speed broadband ride.

To see if your cable service carries the channel, click here. It’s also streamed online.

Caspian×?Ts Net Neutral Proposal

The networking technology company Caspian has offered a ×??Fair Use Policy Framework×?? paper that claims to meaningfully address the current debate over the future of the U.S. broadband Internet. It has a mouthful of a subtitle: ×??A Nondiscriminatory and Noninvasive Approach to Managing Internet Traffic in Full Compliance with U.S. Law and Federal Communications Commission Policy.×?? The ×??abridged×?? version is available on its website (and is the one discussed below). A press release on the report is available.
On the one hand, we applaud the company×?Ts participation in what should be a more contested and public debate over our broadband future. But they show a lack of real understanding about why this issue is so important. Caspian dismisses the current discussion about how the Net should be governed as no more than heated rhetorical posturing. The authors of the paper should have understood that we are arguing about more than which company or industry will come out on top. Whatever is decided about so-called network neutrality will affect the quality of our lives in a democracy that is being fundamentally shaped by digital communications.
First, this is not about ×??maximizing consumer choice,×?? as they put it. It×?Ts about ensuring that digital networks strengthen civic discourse, diversity of expression, and economic opportunity. In another words, the debate is really about the role broadband communications and citizen/public participation in our society. The paper claims that ×??proponents of unlimited network neutrality×?ignore×?that increased Internet usage has resulted in increased congestion.×?? (Not surprisingly, Caspian’s message in the paper is that products such as its ×??media controllers×?? can help ensure more equitable traffic management.) But the paper fails to explore how policies requiring that the cable and telcos add more bandwidth capacity would help address many congestion concerns.

The paper does underscore why public interest groups and many new media companies are alarmed about cable/telco plans for the future of digital distribution. Caspian critiques what it terms their ×??absolutist position for unrestricted managed access×?? by underscoring how AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and others can readily impose higher consumer rates, invade our privacy, and block or impede access to online content.

We await the full paper from Caspian. But we urge readers not to readily support the notion of ×??higher-quality,×?? tiered ($) access models for broadband. It will help usher in a new generation of broadband content that potentially discriminates against users and content providers.

PS/Disclosure: Caspian cites some of our writings (and others, such as Rep. Rick Boucher and Common Cause) as examples of ×??sensationalist statements×?? about the net neutrality debate among their footnoted references. The paper also says that net neutral proponents don×?Tt see the need for fair traffic management. We do. But we don×?Tt want the cable/telco private cop patroling the digital beat.

upside down 6cycle mind mp30cean loader mp3mp3 motel 55mp3 aashayein iqbalspeed perfect god 13 mp3mp3 body 75547 glovesbended mp3 knee 0nchain 38 mp3 special lightning Map

Mike McCurry Joins AT&T’s Campaign for a Monopoly Internet

Former Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry is now part of an AT&T backed “coalition” working on a huge public interest rip-off. AT&T, as we know, is opposed to an open, competitive, and democratic Internet. Now they have used their clout to get McCurry–named as the coalition “co-chair”– to be a part of their “Hands Off the Internet” front group. AT&T wants to make sure that no “network neutrality” safeguards are enacted by Congress. McCurry’s role is to help snare Democrats over to the wrong-side—that being the position that will hurt everyone but AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and a few others.

Ironically, McCurry’s work on behalf of AT&T will ultimately harm many of the non-profit and public interest clients who work with Grassroots Enterprise and the Public Strategies Group. Among the clients listed at McCurry’s various firms include the ACLU, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Sierra Club (MoveOn.org is listed on Grassroots Enterprise website claiming that the firm’s leadership team played a key role with the group). If McCurry’s “coalition” has its way, there will be a threat to civil liberties as a few control the Internet (hello, ACLU); more targeted ads promoting unhealthy lifestyles targeted to kids (please take note, Tobacco-Free Kids); an explosion of commercialism and consumption that will further wreck the environment (the Sierra Club and other such groups should be outraged); and an Internet where only big bucks will ensure you can sway voters (which should alarm MoveOn and all other groups concerned about the future of the Internet in politics).

When Mr. McCurry comes calling on Members of Congress, they should be forewarned. If McCurry, AT&T and company have their way, our country’s hopes for a more just and informed society will be threatened. Such an outcome may be profitable for a very few, but ultimately will harm the many.

PS: McCurry’s Public Strategies Group has represented SBC (now AT&T) for years, helping them build a more powerful telecom monopoly.

AT&T’s Project

On the heels of the defeat yesterday in the House Telecom and Internet Subcommittee (23-8) that would have helped ensure the Internet remain an open and non-discriminatory highway, it may be useful to look more closely at AT&T’s broadband plans. AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and other giants were the victors in yesterday’s defeat of the Markey “network neutrality” amendment. A number of Democrats joined with the GOP committee majority to kill off the open Internet safeguard. Just take a peak, by the way, at the end of this post to see how much cable and telecom money has been taken by some of the folks who supported the Telco/cable agenda yesterday.

But to the point about how AT&T and others are about to do the U.S. Internet great harm. AT&T (then SBC) laid out its digital vision in a September 14, 2005 document to the FCC as part of a proceeding on how “IP-Enabled Services” should be governed (“IP” meaning Internet Protocol, the basic communications structure of the Internet and many digital networks). Not surprisingly, AT&T told the FCC (on page 3) that there should be no public policies governing its “Project Lightspeed” service because it has a “architecture similar to the architecture used by customers to access the Internet.” AT&T then went on to say that its “switched, point to point, IP networks are purposefully designed and ultimately capable of allowing customers to access a wide variety of video and other content on a “on-demand basis.” The service will enable users to obtain “Internet-sourced data” and also gain access to “voice, video and data services.” (see p. 20).

But a few pages later in the 35-page document, AT&T reveals what is an outrageous policy “bait and switch” canard. While it says (on p. 24) that its “purpose in deploying this point-to-point two way network is to provide subscribers with maximum flexibility in customizing what they see and when they see it,” they also say (my bold) that “the ultimate breadth and scope of such on-demand capabilities will be a function of a number of factors, including arrangements with content owners and other programming vendors…”

In another words, the so-called Internet that AT&T will deliver us will be based on who can pay them the most money to have their content included in Lightspeed’s (video) service. AT&T is saying to the FCC and Congress: `don’t require us to have any policy safeguards, because we’re the Internet. Don’t “regulate” the Internet.’ But at the same time, AT&T is making clear (through a document only read by a few lawyers) that it doesn’t intend to give us the Internet at all—just a very profitable closed system where it can charge users and content providers ever-escalating fees. For more, read the “The Impact and Legal Propriety of Applying Cable Franchise Regulation to IP-Enabled Video Services.” [Filed by SBC. WC Docket No. 04-36, September 14, 2005].

PS: Follow the Telco-cable money to the House Telecom Subcommittee. Just look at who is contributing to Subcommittee chairman Upton; Rep. Stearns; Rep.Gonzelaz; and Rep. Wynn.

56 school loansagriculture equipment loansloans 95 equitygaranteed loan 100 homehour auto loan 2450,000 loansabout loans paydaynon 100 owner loans Map

The White House and FCC Connection: New Giveaway to Big Media

The Bush Administration and the U.S. newspaper, broadcasting and telecommunications industry are now involved in subtle conversations/negotiations about media ownership policies that will likely have an impact on journalism. The newspaper and broadcast lobby wants the Administration’s help to over-turn what’s left of the media ownership safeguards. This week, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told a meeting of the powerful newspaper publishers lobby, that he—like his predecessor Michael Powell—was ready to hand them their key political objective: the scuttling of the broadcast-newspaper cross-ownership rule. That policy has helped ensure that one company in a community couldn’t simultaneously operate the two most important sources of information: TV channels and the daily paper. The rule has also protected newspapers from being swept up into ratings-driven/show-biz focused TV industry empires. If the cross-ownership rule is axed, expect even less serious print reporting and more tabloid/infotainment TV-business models for dailies.

Mr. Martin clearly doesn’t have the facts with what’s causing the crisis in U.S. journalism today. Nor can we expect either Martin or his Commission to actually honestly investigate what is happening with journalism. His speech to the publishers was lifted from their lobbying playbook, including the absurd notion that allowing one company to operate several TV stations and the daily paper can bring “a significant increase in the production of local news and current affairs…” Media consolidation and cost-cutting to please Wall Street has led to this crisis. Additional consolidation will further weaken the last vehicle currently capable of sustained and meaningful serious journalism: the daily newspaper (we believe it’s too early to say whether online journalism will evolve into a permanent robust alternative in the near term.)

In another example of Martin (and the GOP) currying favor with big media, the chairman published an op-ed in the Financial Times that declared once again his support for the Telco/cable monopolies stance that they should be able to fully control the future of the high-speed Internet in the U.S.

Martin’s zealous advocacy for the telephone, cable, broadcast, and newspaper industry certainly reflects the view of the Bush White House. The chairman’s wife, Catherine Martin, is Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Communications Director for Policy and Planning (before that she was key aide to Vice President Cheney; prior to her White House position she was an aide to then Texas AG John Cornyn (now a U.S. Senator). We have a difficult time believing that whatever Kevin Martin is doing has not been vetted by the White House (just as the Clinton Administration did with its FCC agenda).

But as we proceed into the 2006 election, it will be interesting to look at how both the newspaper and broadcast TV news operations treat the Bush agenda. Will it be—as it was during the run up to the war in Iraq—a subtle quid pro quo: you waive the rules and we’ll waive the flag?

PS: Here’s the link that will take you to the great speech given by FCC Commissioner Copps at the Freedom to Connect conference on Tuesday.