Digital Destiny

We are flabbergasted—but not surprised—that the forces supporting monopolization and consolidation of the U.S. digital broadband pipeline will resort to practically any argument to shore up their poorly grounded rationale against network neutrality safeguards. Take, for example, a recent post by Scott Cleland at the so-called netcompetition.org. He attempts to use the Google deal with News Corp.’s MySpace.com as an example of the search giant’s hypocrisy. Cleland terms Google a “search-opolist,” since—in his view—they have entered into an exclusive agreement to serve MySpace’s advertising needs. Such a deal, however, has no relation with what netcompetition.org backers have in mind. They wish to fundamentally control the evolution of the entire U.S. digital media system (wired and wireless) so they can profit from “triple play” and beyond. They plan to ensure their (or affiliated) content, search engines, social networking and gaming sites are given a fast ride—while others are left in an uncompetitive and undemocratic digital sphere.

The MySpace deal should be sounding alarm bells about the further commercialization of our culture—and how young people are seen as nothing more than “brand breeders.” But the deal also underscores why we need to have Congress restore Internet Freedom rules now. So we can give the public access to a wide range of interactive services that don’t try to control our web travels and also further commodify our eyeballs, clicks and democratic souls.

PS: We think it strange that Mr. Cleland ignores the history of the open access broadband fight (the precursor to network neutrality), including his own calls on Congress to enact safeguards. He shouldn’t treat the issue as if it was something new. In fact, during the open access debate, Mr. Cleland warned Congress that “market forces alone are not enough to develop or sustain competition in telecommunications” (his emphasis). He told the Senate Commerce Committee that “[W]ithout required open-access of local broadband access platforms in the increasingly complex market for broadband bundles, competitive forces won’t develop sufficiently or rapidly enough to ensure that consumers are offered maximum choice and protection from anticompetitive pricing of broadband vertical services.” He also said that it was “naïve to believe that market forces alone will eventually open the cable network to competition. It does not square with past experience or market reality.” [Source: Written Testimony of Scott C. Cleland, Managing Director of The Legg Mason Precursor Group. November 8, 1999. Before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Hearing on Telecommunications Mergers.]

PPS: Here’s another one of our favorite—keep those pipes open—quotes from Mr. Cleland. From the Washington Post.

“To Scott Cleland, an analyst with Legg Mason Precursor Group, the special treatment that allows cable operators to shut out other providers follows neither history nor logic. “Cable is the fifth wire into America’s homes,” Cleland says. “The principle of nondiscrimination applies to the other four. The electric company cannot tell you what kind of brand of appliance to buy, the gas company can’t tell you what kind of furnace or stove to buy. The water company can’t tell you what kind of faucet or sink to buy. The telephone company can’t tell you what kind of or brand of phone to buy or who to do business with over your phone. Why should cable?” [Source: “How Much Room In the Fat Pipe?” John Schwartz. September 19, 1999; Page H01].

The anti-network neutrality crowd has been citing the position of well-regarded Internet pioneer Dave Farber as part of its campaign to undermine support for the issue. Farber has been squared off against pro net neutrality scholar Vint Cerf (now a Google exec.). Farber and some of his academic friends wrote a widely circulated missive in early June deriding Net Neutrality. The paper, entitled “Common Sense about Network Neutrality” was part of an effort organized by Wharton professor Gerald Faulhaber to provide, in their words, “unbiased interdisciplinary analysis of network neutrality.” The piece invoked such prestigious institutions as the Wharton School, Carnegie-Mellon, and the University of Pennsylvania.
But Faulhaber should have acknowledged in this piece that he has been a consultant for Verizon (see his CV). (Other academics in the group–Yoo, Katz–have been employed by the cable lobby). Consequently, this academic group cannot be seen as delivering such an “unbiased” opinion. Dave Farber might need to write about this on his interesting people list. Perhaps a piece on the legitimacy of taking corporate consulting money by scholars and not disclosing it in related papers?

Want to strike a long-lasting blow for Internet freedom in the U.S.? One approach is to no longer buy any products—including phone and Internet service and shares for investment—from the key companies opposed to network neutrality. These companies are brand bullies. They are using their deep pockets to deep-six an open and democratic broadband communications network for the U.S. They only thing they fear is a consumer backlash. So, let’s give them one. Drop them from your residential service. Ask your business or college to use other providers. Tell your retirement fund managers, if you have one, to place these companies on a “do not buy or hold” list. Tell your friends to spread the word. In other words, let’s turn AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, and Time Warner’s brand identity into something that no smart company would ever desire.

Make this a long-term campaign until they reverse political course on network neutrality.

quotes movie fiction pulpmovies sucking pussyrad racing movieamateur sex movies real homemovie temp rectalretro movies beastsample of fucking titty moviesdoo movies scooby Map