First: Go read Mathew Brauer’s post.

Second: “Net Neutrality” — a quick primer.  

ISPs (internet service providers), e.g., cable companies, AOL or any service that provides your internet access (Comcast, Verizon etc.) can control how data from websites goes through their network and can allow it go faster or force some sites to load at an extremely slow pace. As it currently stands, the cable companies/large telecomms, ISPs, are required – and they DON’T like it – to let data travel through their networks at the same rate of speed regardless of whether it is a website that generates more money for the ISP and regardless of whether the ISP wants people to have access to the information a particular website publishes. If Congress and the FCC do not protect Net Neutrality, consumers will likely find that ISPs will speed up websites that benefit them and slow down websites that they do not like for financial/content reasons. Some sites could be blocked or just be useless due to the consumer’s inablity to have the site load.

There is no good explanation for Congressman Welch signing a letter with 71 anti-consumer members of congress who are advocating federally sanctioned corporate denial of access to information and resources available through the internet.

For a good introduction to the relatively basic consumer protection regulatory steps the FCC is trying to accomplish, I recommend reading Julius Genachowski’s statement, which is located on the White House website.  Mr. Grenachowski is the chairperson of the FCC.

In contrast to the sentiments inexplicably expressed in the letter signed by Congressman Welch, Mr. Genachowski explains his pro-consumer and pro-equal access to the internet position by sating that

The key to the Internet’s success has been its openness.

The Internet was designed to be “future-proof” – to support ideas, products, and services that today’s inventors have not yet imagined. In practice, it doesn’t favor or disfavor any particular content or application, but allows end users, content creators, and businesses of every size and in every sector of the economy to communicate and innovate without permission.

Notwithstanding its unparalleled record of success, today the free and open Internet faces emerging and substantial challenges.

We’ve already seen some clear examples of deviations from the Internet’s historic openness. We have witnessed certain broadband providers unilaterally block access to VoIP applications and implement technical measures that degrade the performance of peer-to-peer software distributing lawful content. We have even seen one service provider deny users access to political content.



And as many members of the Internet community and key Congressional leaders have noted, there are compelling reasons for concern about even greater challenges to openness in the future, including reduced choice in the Internet service provider marketplace and an increase in the amount of Internet traffic, which has fueled a corresponding need to manage networks sensibly.



The rise of serious challenges to the traditional operation of the Internet puts us at a crossroads. We could see technology used to shut doors to entrepreneurs instead of opening them. The spirit of innovation stifled. A full and free flow of information compromised.

[snip]

. . . I proposed that the FCC adopt two new rules to help achieve this.

The first says broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet content or applications. The second says broadband providers must be transparent about their network management practices. . .

. . . I also proposed that the FCC formally enshrine the four pre-existing agency policies that say network operators cannot prevent users from accessing the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice, nor can they prohibit users from attaching non-harmful devices to the network.

It’s well worth reading his full statement here.

The proposed regulations that give Congressman Welch and the other co-signers “concern” and make him “suspicious” are, in fact, simple no-brainers. Net neutrality is a critical protection for all consumers.

To a degree, (and for some of us, that degree is close to 100%), we all rely on, and are at the mercy of, the large telecomm monopolies that our federal government helped to create. Congressman Welch and the FCC need to ensure that access to information is protected and that we are protected from the telecomm giants. ATT, Comcast, Verizon, etc. have made no secret of their interest in censoring information or making it harder/more expensive to access.

We already know that AT&T their ilk want to screw us.  The issue then is what the FCC can and will do to give us some measure of protection. Now is not the time to weaken policies that are in place and which need to be make into federal regulations.  

Only my keyboard, my need to be informed and my curiosity are appropriate arbitrators of the news, information and data resources that must be available to me. Whether I have that right should not be controlled by Comcast or Verizon.  It should be vigilantly protected by my elected representatives.  

The proposed regulations that give Congressman Welch and the other co-signers “concern” and make him “suspicious” are in fact no-brainers. Net neutrality is a critical protection for all consumers.  To a degree, and for some of us, that degree is close to 100%, we all rely and are at the mercy of the large telecomm monopolies that our federal government help create. Congressman Welch and the FCC need to ensure that access to information.  

When it comes to the monopolies governed by regulations that determine whether these monopolies control – and the extent to which they control – information flowing to us and from us, this is the bottom line: Only my keyboard, my need to be informed and my curiosity are appropriate arbitrators of the news, information and data resources that must be available to me. Whether I have that right should not be controlled by Comcast or Verizon.  It should be vigilantly protected by my elected representatives.

Is this what Congressman Welch meant to say?

A rather long quote from Senator Franken because, it’s all good!  

. . . this is about entrepreneurship and innovation. Great innovations only take place on an even playing field, where the little guys can go head-to-head with the big guys. If we change the rules of the game to benefit the big guys, innovation will suffer.

So the issue here isn’t only what might be blocked [without net neutrality regulations], but what might never be developed in the first place. . .

First, censorship. Take a look at Iran. In Iran, every Internet provider uses filters to control the Web sites and e-mails that users can access. They use a technology called “Deep Packet Inspection” to filter every e-mail, Facebook post and Tweet that anyone sends, and – in real time – block content that’s deemed objectionable.

You might say, “Well, that’s a terrible situation, but it’s happening in Iran, and we are not Iran.” No, we’re not Iran, but that isn’t stopping several companies from taking the same or similar technology for a test drive.

. . . [I]in 2007, Verizon refused to allow the pro-choice group NARAL to send text messages to its supporters – even though they had signed up to receive them. Verizon’s explanation was that it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” messages. Like, for example, that a woman should have control of her reproductive system.

A second example: Comcast has used Deep Packet Inspection to block lawful peer-to-peer applications. . . during a live Webcast of a 2007 Pearl Jam concert, AT&T killed the audio for a few beats. Turns out the missing lyrics were critical of President Bush.

ISPs want to profit from a closed Net

Stifling openness on the Internet isn’t always about censorship. In the future, it could simply be a product of business at work – of ISPs turning a profit. The chief technology officer for BellSouth recently said, “I can buy a coach standby ticket or a first class ticket… I can get two-day air or six-day ground.” He asserted that the Internet should be the same way.

The CEO of Verizon made the same point when he said, “We need to make sure there is the right economic model… we need to pay for the pipe.” And one provider proposed a system where consumers could pay a cheap monthly rate for light Internet use, a higher fee for heavier use… but with an exception for people who accessed only the content created by that network provider.

That’s a business motive, but it has the effect of limiting speech, and as far as I’m concerned, free speech limited — or free speech delayed – is the same as free speech denied. Because the truth is that the Internet is the town hall of the 21st century.

In the 1997 decision Reno v. ACLU, Justice Stevens wrote:

   “Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer.”

I serve on the Judiciary Committee, and on my fourth day in the Senate – my first hearing on that committee – we were dealing with the nomination of Judge (now Justice) Sonia Sotomayor.

I asked her specifically about whether she thought the American public has a compelling First Amendment interest in ensuring the Internet stays open and accessible. And if I could paraphrase her answer, it was “yes.” As noisy and messy as it may be, the Internet is a democracy. And because of that, it is a critical part of our democracy. But without strong legislation prohibiting ISPs from regulating content, that may not always be the case.

Let me add that among the people who would be hurt the most are rural users, who, like many in my home state of Minnesota [& Vermont], often only have access to a single ISP. If that rural ISP decides to favor or cut special deals with big companies-or with the companies that ISP also owns – then rural users would only receive the viewpoints that the ISP favors. ISP profit margins should never come at the cost of a free and open Internet.