Net neutrality becomes issue in presidential race
Net Neutrality could soon get top billing in the upcoming 2008 U.S. presidential race.
Or at least, that's what the folks at MoveOn.org are hoping. A question about the issue will be asked of Senator Barack Obama on Monday during an MTV dialogue in Iowa. The event will be streamed live on the Internet at 1:30 p.m. EST and air on MTV at 7:00 p.m. EST.
MTV agreed to ask Obama the top-rated question submitted by a voter in the online video contest 10Questions.com. And the top-rated question is from a MoveOn member, former AT&T engineer Joe Niederberger.
Niederberger's question is this, "Would you make it a priority in your first year of office to reinstate Net neutrality as the law of the land? And would you pledge to only appoint FCC commissioners that support open Internet principles like Net neutrality?"
Net neutrality refers to a principle or a set of principles that would prevent Internet service providers from blocking or degrading certain kinds of traffic on their networks. The idea is that a large company like AT&T or Verizon could block or slow down IP packets carrying information that is being sent or received from a particular Web site or service. Recently cable operator Comcast has been accused of blocking BitTorrent traffic, but the company denies this.
Currently, there are no laws that specifically mandate that network operators keep their networks open. But supporters of Net neutrality claim that changes in the classification of broadband services by the Federal Communications Commission have put the openness of the Internet at risk.
The Federal Communications Commission under Republican chairman Kevin Martin claims that this is not the case. And he points to a set of principles adopted by the commission that encourage network operators to keep their networks open. But these are not regulations and there is no penalty for not complying.
Obviously, Net neutrality supporters don't think this is enough. Last year, hundreds of organizations mobilized people online to form the SavetheInternet.com Coalition. This group and others lobbied Congress for specific legislation to bar operators from blocking or degrading traffic on their networks. Even though the issue stirred up a lot of debate, no law protecting Net neutrality was passed. Now Congress has seemingly moved on to more pressing issues, such as the war in Iraq. For the most part, Net neutrality has fallen by the wayside and out of the news.
Niederberger and MoveOn hope to change that by bringing the issue to the forefront of the presidential race.
"The Internet is a place where people can read any newspaper they want to stay informed," Niederberger said in a phone interview. "They can express their opinions about topics like the war. And without Net neutrality that freedom of information is in danger. In general, shutting down freedom happens in small steps. That's why it is important to watch these things now."
All of the major Democratic candidates, Barak Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson have all expressed support for Net neutrality. And so has Republican candidate Mike Huckabee .
But Niederberger's question will pinpoint specific action.
"In 2008, voters are looking for real leadership," said Adam Green, who leads MoveOn's Internet freedom campaign. "Any presidential candidate who boldly promises to reinstate Net neutrality during his or her first year in office, and to only appoint pro-neutrality FCC commissioners, will get tons of positive buzz online."
Still, the phone companies say there is no need for a specific law on Net neutrality. Speaking at conference in Santa Clara, California last week, James Cicconi, Senior Executive Vice President of External and Legislative Affairs for AT&T said that new legislation would only hurt innovation on the Internet. He said that the phone companies need to have the flexibility to manage traffic on their network. And new Net neutrality laws could prevent that from happening. He said that AT&T's network traffic doubled in 2006 from the previous year, largely from the use of more video from sites like YouTube. He added that AT&T spent $19 billion to upgrade and keep the network working so it could handle the traffic.
"There is this notion out there that all bits are created equal," he said. "But not all bits are created equal. Some bits carry porn while others carry critical information like interactive video for heart surgery. Treating all bits the same is a costly and inefficient use of bandwidth."
He went on to say that current antitrust laws protect consumers from phone companies and cable companies abusing their power to control the network for their own gain.
"If we degrade anybody's Internet traffic intentionally, we could be held accountable under antitrust laws," he said. "And also why would we want to do that? Selling service to customers is our business. The more traffic we have on our networks the more money we make. We just need to manage it effectively."
Cicconi warned politicians and lawmakers not to introduce new regulations or laws to protect Net neutrality.
"There is ample protection out there already," he said. "And I think the cure could be worse than the disease. From my experience, whenever you invite government in to regulate, they never get out. And it rarely works out the way you thought it would."
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
2007/06/05/ed-whitacre-gone-but-not-forgotten/:
Ed Whitacre: Gone But Not Forgotten
AT&T chief Ed Whitacre handed over the keys to his replacement
Randall Stephenson yesterday, but not before giving a rousing
pep talk to fellow executives in the company?s San Antonio
board room.
?There?s a problem. It?s called Net Neutrality,? Whitacre told the
heirs to AT&T?s telecommunications empire. ?Well, frankly, we
say to hell with that. We?re gonna put up some toll booths and
start charging admission.?
* * * * *
Despite claims of poverty whenever pressed to offer better
services, these AT&T execs are privately gloating over more than
$35 billion in gross profits over the last 12 months. Moreover,
Whitacre (and now Stephenson) are pressuring Congress to allow
them to provide privileged Web access to their customers to
companies that pay them a special fee.
* * * * *
?Will Congress let us do it?? Whitacre asks his colleagues. ?You
bet they will ? cuz we don?t call it cashin? in. We call it
?deregulation.??
?Deregulation?: AT&T Code for More Handouts
It?s Whitacre?s brand of ?deregulation? that has left the United
States behind other nations in providing fast, affordable Internet
to more people.
Recent broadband data from the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD) had the U.S. slipping to
15th out of 30 nations in per capita broadband use. Our free-fall
will continue as long as we allow phone and cable companies to
dictate broadband policy in Washington and monopolize
broadband access across the country.
* * * * *
Whitacre remains intent to defy public opinion, funnel cash into
Washington and win over control of the Internet once and for all.
?With all of our generous campaign contributions, I?m quite
certain that Congress will see it our way,? he said during his
farewell speech. ?Who else they gonna listen to? The public?!?"
See also http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/06/05/theres-a-
problem-its-called-net-neutrality/ for partial text. On the same
topic, see http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/27/business/
27cnd-verizon.html?
_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1190923320-xJ
+fhyXuhe5GngCtAt7PXA&oref=slogin , via boing boing [from a
post on 9/27/07]:
"Verizon Wireless last week rejected a request last week from the
abortion rights group NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action
League) to send txts over the Verizon network to subscribers
who chose to receive them. . . . saying it had the right to block
?controversial or unsavory? text-messages. . . . . [F]rom NYT
story by Adam Liptak: '[e]ven as dramatic as the adoption of text
messaging for political communication has been in the United
States, we?ve been quite slow compared to the rest of the world,'
said James E. Katz, the director of the Center for Mobile
Communication Studies at Rutgers University. 'It?s important in
political campaigns and political protests, and it has affected the
outcomes of elections.'
Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia, said it was possible to
find analogies to Verizon?s decision abroad. 'Another entity that
controls mass text messages is the Chinese government,'
Professor Wu said.
Read the whole article, there's some fascinating history in here
about Western Union blocking 'unsavory' messages back in the
telegraph days."
From http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/boingboing/iBag/
~3/153130837/doj-slams-net-neutra.html : DoJ slams net
neutrality, says all packets not created equal
From http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/agendas/att-may-have-
censored-bands-political-speech-in-the-past-288236.php :
AT&T may have censored bands' political speech more than once
http://www.corporations.org/media
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtm
http://www.stopbigmedia.com
http://www.monthlyreview.org/301rwm.htm ? note, this article
was first presented in 2000 so presumably summarizes the
situation based on statistics from even earlier; I?d bet money
that, overall, considerable further consolidation has occurred
- Will AT&T and Verizon Kill the Internet?
- by wazing October 30, 2007 7:11 PM PDT
- Looks like things might be heating up....
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(5 Comments)http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp?aId=51579