Fight For the Internet Freedom Heats Up

Congress is about to return to Washington this week after taking a long summer break for campaigning and before taking a long fall break for campaigning.

During the brief period of governing that will be wedged into the month of September, a lot of damage could be done -- particularly to "The First Amendment of the Internet": the principle known as "Net Neutrality."

Net Neutrality, which has until now been the guiding principle that preserves a free and open Internet, ensures that everyone who logs on can access the content or run the applications and devices of every site on the world wide web. The neutrality principle prevents telephone and cable companies that provide internet service from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.

As the "Save the Internet" campaign [www.savetheinternet.com], a broad coalition of groups fighting to maintain open access to all sites on the web, explains: "Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech."

Telecommunications firms salivate at the prospect of eliminating Net Neutrality requirements and setting up systems where websites that pay for the service will be more easily reached than sites that cannot afford the toll. And U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens, the Alaska Republican who has for many years been a dominant figure in communications debates on Capitol Hill, is determined to change the rules so that Internet gatekeepers such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner, can create an "information superhighway" for those who pay and a dirt road for those who fail to do so.

A sweeping overhaul of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that is being promited by Stevens does not include Net Neutrality protections and would effectively clear the way for the telecommunications giants to colonize the Internet.

Stevens, the chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, wants to see action on the measure before Congress breaks for the remainder of the election season in early October. But rewriting the rules to favor the telecommunications conglomerates may not be as easy this year as it was in 1996. Oregon Senator Ron Wyden has placed a hold on the overhaul legislation and says he will not lift it until Net Neutrality protections are written into the measure.

Activists across the country used the August break to urge senators who had not taken a stand to line up in favor of net neutrality. Rallies in late August targeted Congressional offices in 25 cities nationwide, and they had an impact. A number of senators -- including New York's Chuck Schumer, Minnesota's Mark Dayton, Iowa's Tom Harkin and Vermont's Jim Jeffords -- pledged their support for net neutrality.

But Stevens -- and too many of his allies in both parties -- remained unmoved as September started.

As the return of Congress loomed, however, the Alaska senator took a poke from the largest daily newspaper in his state, the Anchorage Daily News, which bluntly declared in a September 4 editoral that: "Net Neutrality is a good idea. Sen. Ted Stevens should support it."

"Sen. Stevens has said he doesn't see an immediate problem that requires regulation. In other words, he's reluctant to have the government set the playing rules until more companies are caught cheating. Apparently he thinks competition can be counted on to prevent any abuses," explained the editorial. "Only problem is, local Internet service is not a fluid, totally free market with a lot of competitors. Many markets are served by only one or two high-speed Internet companies. Switching providers is not as easy as driving to the next gas station or grocery store. Special expertise and special equipment are required to switch. Many consumers may not even be sophisticated enough to know when their Internet service is playing favorites in sending content."

The Anchorage Daily News concluded that, "Net Neutrality is hardly a heavy-handed government intrusion into the free-wheeling world of the Internet. It is a simple antitrust rule that protects consumers by keeping Internet companies from exploiting their control over connections. Congress should get ahead of the curve and ensure net neutrality before abuses begin to spread."

That's the right position. And it is summed up by a measure that the Senate should pass before its members go out and ask Americans for their votes this fall: The Internet Freedom Preservation Act. Sponsored by Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan the act would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality.

While the machinations in the Senate this month are troubling, they also provide a critical opening for the debate that America should be having on media policy. No incumbent senator or candidate for a senate seat should be allowed to make it to November without addressing the issue of Net Neutrality and the broader question of whether media policy in this country should serve a few telecommunications giants or the the great mass of Americans and the great potential of American democracy.

Comments (18)

1. Indeed. And as one who lived in Alaska for many years during Ted Steven's ridiculous political career- years before he was aided and abetted by the likes of Don Young and the Murkowski wannabe dynasty- I can tell you full bore that if Ted is opposed to net neutrality, it must be because net neutrality can't be pocketed. Ted never met the corporate fanny he couldn't smooch.

   Posted by MCHureaux at 09/04/2006 @ 2:26pm

2. anyone opposed to net neutrality is, simply put, an idiot. about as idiotic as somebody who STILL supports either bush or, the centerpiece of his presidency, iraq.

   debate with such morons is simply not possible.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2006 @ 2:41pm

3. it isn't a matter of free speech, frank, it's a matter of CASH. and lots of it.

   just do the math, dude. 1 billion users x 18.99/month = 18.9 billion/month = 120 billion/year

   Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2006 @ 2:47pm

4. It's also not a "Republican" issue, as the article itself makes fairly clear. It's a bipartisan question both for support of it and for opposition.

   Posted by Thrawn at 09/04/2006 @ 3:00pm

5. Posted by FRANKGRITS 09/04/2006 @ 2:43pm

   And what is it that repub new cons do with free speech:

   http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/2/115926/2629

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/04/2006 @ 6:35pm

6. i can't believe kos is going into a tizzy over this. let them air them the damn program. i'm curious to see it, actually.

   fox news, playing day after day, is far worse than some two-part propaganda piece on clinton's foibles.

   Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2006 @ 7:44pm

7. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 09/04/2006 @ 9:35pm

   Well Luvvy... if the hamster conservatives don't want to change anything then why did the rules committee in the house even let the bill onto the floor?

   It's not like they ever let liberal bills on the floor for a vote you know

   Posted by Will C. at 09/04/2006 @ 10:02pm

8. two hilariously stupid comments from conservatives. let's take a closer look:

   "simple competition"

   oh sure, "simple" is how i'd describe verizon, comcast and at&t's "competitive" spirit. anyone can get in on it, right? all you need is $1 billion in start-up costs. it's the "free market" after all.

   look, liberals have good reason to be somewhat skeptical of "competition," when there are only a handful (literally) of competitors. consumers stand to gain NOTHING from opening up these "markets" to the highest bidders. this is nothing more than CASH (read: BIG MONEY) for the corporate media elite.

   "Truth is always difficult for the left to swallow as lies go down so easily"

   ok, let me get this, the left's exemplar is bill clinton?? please don't make me fall off my chair!

   Posted by darladoon at 09/04/2006 @ 10:50pm

9. The way I read this is...

   the ISP (Internet SERVICE Providers) want to have the same rights as the cable TV guys, right?

   I mean, there's "broadcast TV" (which anybody with a cathode ray tube and some rabbit ears can pick up)...and there's "broadcast/extended/etc cable", which is a special service you have to pay for.

   So, shouldn't Mr Nichols be arguing for "free expanded basic, or even HBO/Cinemax package" for everybody, to remain consistant?

   Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 09:23am

10. you're wrong mask. the ISPs aren't the ones who "own the pipes", as they would put it. the ISPs actually stand to lose, as they only would be able to provide part of a "package"---and the part that is worth a LOT less.

    the big telecoms that own the broadband cable would be in charge---the ones that provide cable/phone (at&t, comcast, verizon, etc). not the ISPs.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 10:30am

11. as if they already aren't in charge.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 10:30am

12. Posted by DARLADOON 09/05/2006 @ 10:30am

    Corrected. But if they "own the pipes", isn't it theirs to do with as they please?

    Again, couldn't a similar argument be made that Cable TV operators "must" supply free HBO, or else they're not providing "cable neutrality"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 10:50am

13. they don't own the pipes, they merely upgrade them.

    pipes are actually publicly owned, historically speaking.

    and there is no comparison to cable tv. have you ever made a cable tv program?? the internet is easily accessible, public and more or less egalitarian. easy access; easy exit. a true free market if there ever was one....

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 12:29pm

14. they don't own the pipes, they merely upgrade them.

    pipes are actually publicly owned, historically speaking.

    Posted by DARLADOON 09/05/2006 @ 12:29am

    I'm sorry, the TV and modem cables and telephone lines are "publicaly owned"?

    Posted by Mask at 09/05/2006 @ 1:01pm

15. yes, mask, we own the pipes. period.

    we use them, we pay for them. we own them.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 6:46pm

16. i mean, just think about it, can you own a river that runs for 30,000,000 miles?

    the cable runs everywhere. through our homes, under our homes, under our rivers and over our mountains. through our forests. cable is everywhere now.

    how can at&t own all that cable? simple: they don't. we own it.

    Posted by darladoon at 09/05/2006 @ 8:50pm

17. Congress is about to return to Washington this week after taking a long summer break for campaigning and before taking a long fall break for campaigning.

    During the brief period of governing that will be wedged into the month of September, a lot of damage could be done ...

    While the humorous nature of this this statement gets the point across, the phrase "during the brief period of governing..." is actually incorrect, and represents a common misperception about the powers of Congress. I'm certain Mr. Nichols does know this, but Congress does not "govern", though they seem to believe they do. "Governance" is the responsibility of the Executive branch of the government. As the Legislative branch of government, Congress defines laws and provides authoritative oversight of the executive branch, but it doesn't "govern". I don't know that the current occupants of the Executive branch are actually governing, either, which is another discussion... but at least the Constitutional separation of powers is defined this way. Yes, we believe in the Rule of Law, but by perpetuating this misconception about the powers of Congress, we are falling into the tyranny of the Rule of Lawyers.

    Posted by lockerc18 at 09/06/2006 @ 08:19am

18. The following website provides the email addresses for every newspaper in Alaska. They can all be innundated with messagges about fat cats like Stevens. Alaska is NOT an isolated outpost where fat cats like Stevens can operate with impunity. You can email every one of these places. Alaska can respond to pressure, too. http://www.usnpl.com/aknews.html

    Posted by Tim Barrus at 09/06/2006 @ 08:57am