Appeals Court Rejects More Media Consolidation

Stephen Lendman
Saturday, July 09, 2011
http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/2011/07/appeals-court-rejects-more-media.html

In six editions of "The Media Monopoly" and subsequent update titled, "The New Media Monopoly," Ben Bagdikian explained how deregulation let major media corporations consolidate to oligopoly size.

Since 1983, the number of corporations owning most newspapers, magazines, book publishers, recorded music, movie studios, television and radio stations shrunk from 50 to a handful, including Time-Warner, Disney, News Corp., Viacom, Comcast, and Bertelsmann AG.

In 1996, Telecommunications Act backers claimed it would increase competition, lower prices, and improve service. In fact, TV station ownership limits were raised to let broadcast giants own twice as many local stations as before, charge what they wished, and dismiss public concerns in the process.

For radio, all national ownership limits were removed, and, in large urban areas, one company could own up to eight stations in a major market. In smaller ones, two companies could own them all.

The bill also consigned new digital television broadcast spectrum space only to current TV station owners, and let cable companies increase their local monopoly positions. Media and telecom giants were clear winners. Consumers lost out.

Yet in October 2007, FCC chairman Kevin Martin proposed lifting the 1975 media cross-ownership rule, forbidding one company from owning a newspaper and television or radio station in the same city even though some conglomerates already did like News Corp. In November, he amended his plan to allow cross ownership only in large markets where competition already exists, with deceptive loopholes through waivers to permit it anywhere.

In 2003, FCC Michael Powell also tried loosening ownership rules, despite opponents saying relaxing them would further stifle debate, inhibit new ideas, weaken diversity, and more greatly consolidate oligopoly power.

In June 2004, the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled favorably for the Media Access Project (MAP) in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, ordering the agency to reconsider its ill-advised ownership rule changes that included:

-- ending cross-ownership restrictions that prohibits a company from owning a newspaper and TV or radio station in the same city;

-- eliminating the previous ban on radio/TV cross-ownership, and replacing both types with a single set of cross-media limits;

-- a dodgy "diversity index" based on assigning varying weights to different media to determine if markets retained enough. It not, ownership limits would be restricted, but the formula proposed was deceptive and dishonest, including for smaller markets; and

-- redefining National Market Share to let ownership ceilings rise unfairly.

In fact, the public overwhelmingly wants more, not less consolidation. On July 7, an important victory was won when the same Third Circuit Court issued its long-awaited verdict, throwing out proposed FCC rules changes.

The Prometheus Radio Project (PRP) "builds participatory radio as a tool for social justice organizing and a voice for community expression. (It) advocate(s) for a more just media system, and help(s) grassroots organizations build communications infrastructure to strengthen their communities and movements."

PRP explained the court decision on its web site, accessed through the following link:

http://www.prometheusradio.org/node/2532

Headlining "Federal Court Rejects Media Consolidation in Prometheus vs. FCC," it hailed PRP's "second historic victory" this year, saying:

The Third Circuit Court rejected FCC rules changes "that would have allowed one company to own a newspaper and broadcast stations in the same market," despite some already doing it.

Other FCC broadcast ownership limits were also upheld, as well as agreement that proposed changes failed to consider how women and minorities would be affected.

Media Access Project's PRP attorney Andrew Jay Schwartzman hailed the decision, saying:

"We won on almost every point. This decision is a vindication of the public's right to have a diverse media environment," despite how little now exists, except through alternative media sources, especially online.

On January 4, PRP won another victory when the Community Radio Act became law, permitting thousands of new stations nationally. Praising the decision, PRP's Policy Director Brandy Doyle said:

"Media matters. Thousands of people fought to pass the (law), and thousands more spoke out loudly when the FCC tried to further consolidate broadcast media." However, despite important victories, "we must continue to push the FCC to do the right thing for community radio."

On July 12, ahead of implementing the Local Community Radio Act, "the FCC will again propose new rules." Key is ensuring low-power urban FM community radio stations channel space as Congress mandated.

"Commercial broadcasters must share the airwaves with the urban churches, schools, and non-profits who have waited more than a decade to serve their communities with radio."

On July 7, a Free Press.net press release also hailed the court ruling. Corie Wright (who argued with Schwartzman for PRP) called it:

"a sweeping victory for the public interest. In rejecting the arguments of the industry and exposing the FCC's failures, the court wisely concluded that (media) competition....not more concentration will provide Americans with the local news and information they need and want."

Nonetheless, she said dominant media giants still lobby hard for rules changes, very much against the public interest that won this battle but can't relax.

This win, however, prevented one company from owning a city's dominant newspaper, eight radio stations, three television stations, and a major cable operation, shutting out most other voices entirely.

Distorted Major Media Coverage

On July 7, New York Times writer Bill Carter headlined, "Court Overturns FCC Cross-Ownership Rule," downplaying the decision's importance, saying:

"In a narrow ruling unlikely to have an immediate effect on current broadcasters," the court "did not rule on the merits" of FCC's proposed changes. "Instead, (it) said that the FCC had failed to allow sufficient time for official notice and public comment on them," distorting what, in fact, happened in typical Times fashion, suppressing vital information from its readers.

Wall Street Journal writer Amy Schatz was no better, headlining, "Appeals Court Bumps Up Pressure to Overhaul Media-Ownership Rule," unsurprisingly siding with media giants while ignoring the decision's importance.

Bloomberg's Sophia Pearson and Todd Shields also offered a distorted, biased account, headlining, "FCC's Rules on Media Cross-Ownership Are Vacated by Federal Appeals Court," saying:

The court ruled that the FCC "failed to provide adequate notice," downplaying the decision's importance like The Times, including by quoting Newspaper Association of America president John Sturm calling the decision "very disappointing. We're back to the original rule that was passed in 1975. It strains credulity to understand why that is."

In fact, following daily major print and broadcast media explains clearly why less (lots less), not more, concentration is needed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour

After approving NBC buyout, FCC Commish becomes Comcast lobbyist

Nate Anderson
5-11-11
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/after-approving-comcastnbc-deal-fcc-commish-becomes-comcast-lobbyist.ars

Meredith Attwell Baker, one of the two Republican Commissioners at the Federal Communications Commission, plans to step down—and right into a top lobbying job at Comcast-NBC.

The news, reported this afternoon by the Wall Street Journal, The Hill, and Politico, comes after the hugely controversial merger of Comcast and NBC earlier this year. At the time, Baker objected to FCC attempts to impose conditions on the deal and argued that the "complex and significant transaction" could "bring exciting benefits to consumers that outweigh potential harms."

Four months after approving the massive transaction, Attwell Baker will take a top DC lobbying job for the new Comcast-NBC entity, according to reports.

The response of groups like Free Press was expected in its anger, but not without merit. "No wonder the public is so nauseated by business as usual in Washington—where the complete capture of government by industry barely raises any eyebrows," said Free Press' Craig Aaron. "The continuously revolving door at the FCC continues to erode any prospects for good public policy. We hope—but won't hold our breath—that her replacement will be someone who is not just greasing the way for their next industry job."

Such cash-ins, of course, are a bipartisan affair in Washington.

Attwell Baker this afternoon released a statement once the news broke, explaining that she would leave on June 3 and that she was "privileged to have had the opportunity to serve the country at a time of critical transformation in the telecommunications industry. The continued deployment of our broadband infrastructures will meaningfully impact the lives of all Americans. I am happy to have played a small part in this success."

Al Franken: ‘They're coming after the Internet’

MIKE ZAPLER | 3/14/11
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51266.html

AUSTIN, Texas — Sen. Al Franken claimed Monday that big corporations are "hoping to destroy" the Internet and issued a call to arms to several hundred tech-savvy South by Southwest attendees to preserve net neutrality.

"I came here to warn you, the party may be over," Franken said. "They're coming after the Internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important [medium] for independent artists and entrepreneurs: its openness and freedom.”

Net neutrality, he added, is "the First Amendment issue of our time."

Receiving a hero's welcome from the liberal crowd, Franken took repeated shots at big telecoms, singling out Comcast.

He said Comcast is looking to change the basic architecture of the Web by implementing a pricing scheme that allows moneyed interests to pay for faster speeds, leaving everyone else behind. That would be a particularly bad development for the independent musicians and artists gathered here, he said.

"The real end for Comcast is to put Netflix out of business entirely," Franken said, because of the threat that Netflix's streaming video business could pose to Comcast's cable franchise. "In the end, the American people will end up paying a lot more for worse service."

Comcast is now embroiled in a dispute with Level 3, a networking company that carries online video feeds for Netflix, over fees Comcast wants to charge to carry the high-bandwidth content.

In response to Franken’s comments, a Comcast spokeswoman said Monday that the dispute with Level 3 isn’t about net neutrality but is “a peering issue.” “Under the FCC order for the Comcast NBCU transaction, Comcast is required to comply with the FCC’s recent open Internet rules even if they are overturned in court. Our customers can access all Netflix content,” said Sena Fitzmaurice, Comcast’s vice president of government communications.

Franken, who was an aggressive opponent of the Comcast acquisition of NBC Universal, implored SXSW attendees to fight the political influence of the big telecom firms.

"Unfortunately one thing these big corporations have that we don't is the ability to purchase favorable political outcomes," he said. "Big telecoms have lots of [lobbyists], and good ones, too. ... The end of net neutrality would benefit no one but these corporate giants."

Franken said talk of a "government takeover" of the Internet by net neutrality critics has as much credibility as claims of "death panels" in the health care legislation and claims that "Obama's a Muslim," calling them a "pantheon of lies."

Franken finished up his half-hour speech by imploring the crowd to preserve net neutrality to avoid a future in which they're "stuck listening to the Black Eyed Peas and reminiscing about the days before you had to sell out to make it.”

“Let's not let the government sell us out,” he said. “Let's fight for net neutrality. Let's keep Austin weird. Let's keep the Internet weird. Let's keep the Internet free."

Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/netflix-partner-says-comcast-toll-threatens-online-video-delivery/

November 29, 2010
Netflix Partner Says Comcast ‘Toll’ Threatens Online Video Delivery
BRIAN STELTER

Level 3 Communications, a central partner in the Netflix online movie service, accused Comcast on Monday of charging a new fee that puts Internet video companies at a competitive disadvantage.

Level 3, which helps to deliver Netflix’s streaming movies, said Comcast had effectively erected a tollbooth that “threatens the open Internet,” and indicated that it would seek government intervention. Comcast quickly denied that the clash had anything to do with network neutrality, instead calling it “a simple commercial dispute.”

The dispute highlighted the growing importance of Internet video delivery — an area that some people say needs to be monitored more closely by regulators. Net neutrality, which posits that Internet traffic should be free of any interference from network operators like Comcast, is thought to be on the December agenda of the Federal Communications Commission.

“With this action, Comcast demonstrates the risk of a ‘closed’ Internet, where a retail broadband Internet access provider decides whether and how their subscribers interact with content,” Thomas C. Stortz, the chief legal officer for Level 3, said in a statement Monday.

Those issues cut to the heart of Comcast’s imminent acquisition of NBC Universal, which is in the final stages of review by the F.C.C. and the Justice Department. The F.C.C. is considering attaching a condition to the merger that would aim to keep Comcast’s Internet network open to competitors, according to public filings this month.

In theory, without government action, Comcast could speed up streams of NBC programs and slow down streams of its rivals’ programs. “This may be one of those teaching moments for consumers to understand what’s at stake,” said Michael McGuire, a media analyst for Gartner.

There is no known case of Comcast ever slowing the traffic to one of its direct competitors, but it did delay some peer-to-peer file traffic in a much-litigated case several years ago. Comcast says it supports an open Internet — but also says that it needs to be able to manage its expensive and still-evolving networks, which are essentially on- and off-ramps to the Internet.

Level 3 in essence operates a highway that connects to those ramps and handles traffic to and from individual Web sites. Comcast customers rely on the company’s on- and off-ramps from that highway. With nearly 17 million broadband Internet customers, Comcast is the nation’s largest such service provider.

The scuffle between the two started on Nov. 19, when Level 3 says Comcast demanded a recurring fee to “transmit Internet online movies and other content to Comcast’s customers who request such content.”

Three days later, under pressure from Comcast, “Level 3 agreed to the terms, under protest, in order to ensure customers did not experience any disruptions,” Mr. Stortz said.

Mr. Stortz did not cite Netflix in his statement. But just a week before Comcast’s demand, Level 3 announced a multiyear deal to support Netflix’s rapidly growing streaming service.

A recent study found that at peak times, Netflix represented 20 percent of Internet download traffic in the United States. That makes it a de facto competitor for incumbent distributors like Comcast and Time Warner Cable, which are eager to protect both the subscription television business and the emerging video-on-demand business.

Mr. Stortz implied that Comcast was taking the action to impair companies that compete with its own cable and Internet services.

A spokesman for Netflix declined to comment Monday. Netflix, which announced a new pricing structure last week, is gradually weaning its customers from DVDs by mail in favor of online streaming, making any new costs a serious concern.

Comcast on Monday rebuffed the notion that the new fees were related to Netflix by saying that the type of traffic distributed by Level 3 was irrelevant. Joe Waz, a senior vice president at Comcast, says it has had a peering agreement with Level 3 to swap traffic fairly evenly. Now Level 3 is sharply increasing its traffic, he said, while resisting a commercial agreement to pay for that.

Comcast is “already carrying huge amounts of video to our high-speed Internet customers every day through commercial arrangements, and it seems to be working for everybody else,” Mr. Waz said. “Level 3 is trying to change the rules of the game.”

If nothing else, the dispute demonstrates that consumers have little, if any, idea how convoluted it can be to transmit video to a computer or mobile phone.

Nonetheless, on Monday night, public interest groups that have steadfastly opposed the combination of Comcast and NBC Universal argued that the Level 3 case proved that Comcast would discriminate against competitors if it could.

“On its face, this is the sort of toll booth between residential subscribers and the content of their choice that a net neutrality rule is supposed to prohibit,” said Harold Feld, legal director of one such group, Public Knowledge, in a statement.

Mr. Stortz said Level 3 would be approaching government regulators this week and “asking them to take quick action to ensure that a fair, open and innovative Internet does not become a closed network controlled by a few institutions with dominant market power that have the means, motive and opportunity to economically discriminate between favored and disfavored content.”

Mr. McGuire, of Gartner, said, “There is no law here. There are only guiding principles. F.C.C. clarity on this kind of thing is going to be required.”

How the TeleCom Industry Plans to Take Over the Internet

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/02-7

Friday, July 2, 2010
CommonDreams.org
How the TeleCom Industry Plans to Take Over the Internet in Four Easy Steps
Timothy Karr

Have you heard about the battle over the Internet?

It's a power grab that involves lawyers, lobbyists, unscrupulous legislators, phony front groups and the most powerful telecommunications companies in the world.

They've aligned themselves against the rest of us -- the millions of Americans who use the Internet every day, in increasingly inventive ways.

They've opened their wallets to Washington. It's an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars and it's being made right now by AT&T, Comcast and Verizon -- the companies that provide broadband access to the vast majority of Americans.

These companies are chasing the ultimate payout: control, not just of the Internet wires that snake into our homes, but over the information that flows across those wires..

While this fight has been brewing for years, it's come to a head at a time when more and more broadband users are taking to YouTube, Twitter, Mashable and other innovations.

Right now, the FCC and Congress are weighing a series of decisions that could determine whether this decade-long explosion of Internet creativity was a short-lived experiment in people-powered media, or the beginning of an era of more decentralized, participatory and democratic communications.

20th-century media colossi prefer a return to the old ways, where a handful of gatekeeper firms operated the turn-on valve to all popular information. It was a profitable model that worked well for one-way communications like newspapers, radio, and television. If only it can be applied in age of flash mobs and FourSquare, too.

These media giants are spending a fortune to convince lawmakers and regulators to dismantle consumer protections on the Internet and give industry absolute power over the most important communications medium of our time.

Here's how they plan to do it, in four easy steps:

ONE: Buy Congress

The New York Times reported yesterday that AT&T, Comcast and Verizon executives and political action committees are among the top campaign contributors to lawmakers responsible for communications policy on the Hill.

"Political contributions from AT&T in the current election cycle reached $2.6 million by May 16, on the way to exceeding the total in each of the last three elections," according to the Times. AT&T has been especially generous to the campaigns of every Republican (most notably, John McCain), and all but three Democrats on the subcommittee that deals with the Internet in the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. From 1998 through 2009, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner Cable contributed more than $96 million to candidates for federal office, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics (and compiled here). In 2010 they're set to break all records for annual spending.

TWO: Mobilize an Army of Lobbyists

The phone and cable industry controls Internet access for more than 96 percent of Americans. Now, with the help of an army of lobbyists, they're planning to expand that control even further. In 2009, they spent more than $70 million on nearly 500 "K" Street lobbyists.

These agents for hire swarmed the FCC and Capitol Hill in a push to consolidate industry control over the Internet and kill Net Neutrality, the principle that preserves the free and open Internet, before the public (and public interest advocates like Free Press) gets a seat at the table.

Paul Blumenthal of the Sunlight Foundation recently revealed that cable and phone companies hired 276 former government officials to lobby for them in the first quarter of 2010. Included in this figure are 18 former members of Congress and 48 former staffers of current members of Congress on committees with jurisdiction over the Internet.

THREE: Spread Astroturf

Astroturf (or fake grassroots) groups surface wherever and whenever public policies threaten the corporate status quo. In Washington, they've spread like kudzu to envelope civic discourse over global warming, health care and financial reform in a tangle of corporate talking points.

The phone and cable lobby has been busily seeding Astroturf to kill Internet consumer protections. Notably they've funded FreedomWorks, Americans for Prosperity and Arts + Labs to paint Net Neutrality as a "government takeover of the Internet" and to dismiss as "extremists" the nearly 2 million people who have called on Washington to enact lasting Net Neutrality protections.

Their dirty little secret? Most of these fake grassroots groups routinely fail to disclose that their operations are fully funded by corporate special interests.

FOUR: Demonize the Public Interest

Behind every corporate lobbying juggernaut lies a smear campaign targeting public interest advocates.

For these smear-mongers, Net Neutrality is better known as "Internet socialism," "the Fairness Doctrine for the Internet," or simply the cornerstone of the Obama administration's frightening "vision of government ownership and control" over all communications and aspects of our lives. Net Neutrality supporters occupy the radical "fringe" of society, they say.

For Glenn Beck, Net Neutrality is a slowly creeping Maoism designed so that the FCC can "turn the Internet into a public utility, which means they have the power to control and regulate every bit of it."

If the uptick in scorn for an open Internet from the shill and talk radio echo chamber seems a little suspicious, look no further than the companies that still advertise with and support these merchants of disdain. You'll find many familiar names.

Everyone has a stake in the outcome of this fight, whether you're a YouTube "celebrity" or a chili pepper salesman, or someone in between. If you want to control your own Internet experience, you'll need to burst the industry spin, learn the facts about Net Neutrality, and get involved in the fight for open communications.

Now is one of those times that Washington needs to be reminded whom they really work for. And it's not AT&T and Glenn Beck.

As the Campaign Director for Free Press and SavetheInternet.com, Karr oversees campaigns on public broadcasting and noncommercial media, fake news and propaganda, journalism in crisis, and the future of the Internet. Before joining Free Press, Tim served as executive director of MediaChannel.org and vice president of Globalvision New Media and the Globalvision News Network.

Coalition urges FCC to block proposed merger of Comcast-NBC

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/104477-coalition-urges-fcc-to-block-comcast-nbc-merger

Coalition urges FCC to block proposed merger of Comcast-NBC
Gautham Nagesh
06/21/10
A coalition of media companies, unions and nonprofits is urging the Federal Communications Commission to block the merger of Comcast and NBC Universal.

The coalition, made up of organizations including media giant Bloomberg, the Writers Guild of America, West and advocacy groups like Free Press and Media Access Project, wrote to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski on Monday voicing their opposition to the proposed merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal.

Monday is the last day for organizations to submit public comment to the FCC on the proposed merger, which would create a new $30 billion joint venture merging the Philadelphia cable giant's content division with NBC Universal's (NBCU) stable of television networks, film studios and theme parks. Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger, (R-Calif.), David Paterson, (D-N.Y.) and Ed Rendell (D-Pa.) have expressed support for the merger.

The groups argue the new entity would have unprecedented control over the country's media landscape, raising antitrust concerns.

"The proposed merger of Comcast and NBC-Universal is poised to fundamentally alter the landscape of the U.S. media market," the letter states. "We are a group of varied organizations with many specific concerns with this merger, but we have joined together because the threat of this merger to consumers is so great."

"As filed," it goes on, "we oppose this merger."

According to the letter, the new entity created by the merger would include the largest cable company, the largest residential broadband Internet service provider, the owner of one of the four national broadcast networks, several prominent local stations, cable networks and some of the most popular websites.

This would give the company "a degree of market power unrivaled in our nation's media history," the letter claims.

Comcast executive vice president for public policy David Cohen responded to criticism of the deal Monday afternoon in a lengthy blog post citing the numerous elected officials, advocacy groups and labor organizations that have endorsed the merger. He also indicated that many critics are motivated by business interests, not concern for consumers.

"It is important to keep in mind as you read the comments from opponents of this transaction that the businesses in which Comcast operates in today – distribution, programming, online, high-speed Internet, and voice — are all fiercely competitive," Cohen writes.

"Comcast and NBCU don’t compete against each other in most segments of the market, so there is no new concentration. There are no cable systems involved in this deal, so Comcast’s distribution platform will not grow."

“If the Comcast-NBC deal goes through, it would be one of the largest media mergers in a generation, leaving Americans with even higher cable bills and fewer diverse, independent choices on the dial," said Free Press President Josh Silver. "Approval of the deal would be business as usual in Washington, letting the largest companies have their way at the public’s expense."

Silver said the deal is particularly bad for consumers in the 12 markets where Comcast is the leading cable and broadband Internet provider and NBC has a local TV station, including Washington, D.C. He also warned the deal could threaten the viability of online video sites like Hulu.com, claiming Comcast could prioritize its own online content in violation of the principle of net neutrality.

Sen. Herb Kohl, (D-Wis.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on antitrust, competition policy and consumer rights, wrote to the FCC last month asking the commission to impose a host of conditions on the deal, including a promise from Comcast not to discriminate against content from other networks.

The full list of organizations that co-signed the letter follows:

Bloomberg LP

Common Cause

Communications Workers of America

Free Press

Media Access Project

The National Association of Independent Networks

The National Coalition of African-American Owned Media

National Consumers League

The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies

National Telecommunications Cooperative Association

Public Knowledge

WealthTV

Writers Guild of America, West

Supreme Court declines to hear cable DVR case

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10141706-93.html

January 13, 2009
Supreme Court declines to hear cable DVR case
Marguerite Reardon

The Supreme Court has declined to hear what could be a watershed copyright case that has the potential to make it easier for people to record and watch their favorite movies and TV shows at home.

On Monday, the Supreme Court asked the U.S. Department of Justice to look at a case involving a new service proposed by Cablevision that allows people to record broadcast TV shows and movies on a digital video recorder that sits in Cablevision's network instead of in their living rooms.

Cablevision started testing its new remote storage-digital video recorder service called Mystro TV in 2003. And the TV networks and Hollywood film studios sued the cable operator in New York, seeking to block the service. The networks and studios have argued that recording programming in this way violates copyrights.

The case has been winding its way through the court system for three years. In 2007, a U.S. District Court in New York barred Cablevision from launching the service after the cable operator lost its initial suit. Cablevision appealed the decision. And in August 2008, a U.S. appeals court overturned the lower court's ruling, siding with Cablevision.

The TV networks and movie studios appealed to the Supreme Court in October, arguing that Cablevision was violating the law because it did not plan to pay a licensing fee to make copies of their TV shows.

But Cablevision has argued that it is the cable subscriber who is determining what is copied. The networked DVR only sits in the Cablevision network where the content is stored and accessed. The company wants to keep this technology in its network because it is more efficient and cost effective to deliver the service than providing every home with multiple DVR set-top boxes.

Cablevision, which services over 3 million customers in the New York metropolitan area, claims each set-top box costs about $100. This cost is passed on to consumers who must pay a rental fee for their DVR set-top-boxes. The cable operator also incurs costs for installing and maintaining this equipment. Eliminating the need for one of these boxes in the home could reduce Cablevision's capital costs, and it could also help reduce the cost of the service for consumers.

It could also allow consumers to get rid of their set-top boxes altogether or at least get smaller devices that don't take up as much room as the bulky DVR boxes of today. And because the DVR function is housed in Cablevision's network instead of at home, consumers also won't have to deal with the hassle that often comes along with housing a relatively complex piece of networking equipment in their homes.

Experts agree that how the legal questions surrounding the case are ultimately decided will likely have a huge effect on the TV industry. Some believe it could even be as important a decision as the 1984 Supreme Court decision to allow consumers to record TV shows and movies on home videocassette recorders. That decision paved the way for the VCR, and it also cleared the way for DVR services that were first offered by Tivo and are now a mainstay of every cable, satellite, and phone company offering paid TV services.

It's been reported that Comcast and Time Warner Cable are also planning to introduce a networked DVR service if Cablevision wins its legal battles. And Verizon, which offers TV service through its Fios service, has also said it would consider offering a similar service.

For now the Supreme Court has sent the case to the Justice Department to consider. But the solicitor general at the Justice Department still has the option to toss the case back to the Supreme Court. If that happens, it wouldn't be heard until fall.

Time to settle net neutrality debate

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_11240110

Time to settle net neutrality debate
By Chris O'Brien
Mercury News

12/16/2008

I had lulled myself into believing we were all but done with this whole debate about net neutrality, the notion that service providers must treat all traffic equally.

I mistakenly thought a ruling by the Federal Communications Commission back in September in a case involving Comcast had settled the issue, once and for all.

Silly me.

A story that appeared on The Wall Street Journal's Web site over the weekend and in Monday's paper claimed that Google was asking for preferential treatment from network providers that appeared at odds with its previous support for net neutrality. The article also said that President-elect Barack Obama was backtracking on the issue. And the story reported that Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig, a leading advocate for a free and open Internet, had "softened" his stance.

The article prompted heated denials from all three.

But while the story may have been off target, it's clear from the subsequent dust-up that the issue of net neutrality is far from settled. The article and the subsequent back-and-forth of blog postings and press releases revealed that some fault lines remain, even among supporters.

So job one for the new FCC under President Obama should be to define and make permanent net neutrality. The FCC should establish clear guidelines for what constitutes acceptable network management. It's in the best interest of service providers, Internet companies and consumers to get this done and move on to other issues.

If net neutrality seems like so much Washington policy wonkishness, well, it's not. As Internet traffic explodes, telecommunications companies like Comcast and AT&T have argued that they're spending vast sums of money on new infrastructure that companies like Google are eating up with their search and video traffic. The service providers would like to charge some companies more to carry certain types of content, or to restrict the amount or type of content to end users to help manage that flow of traffic.

For instance, Comcast was accused of blocking file sharing and peer-to-peer network services for extended periods, uses that generate a heavy amount of traffic. Until the practice was brought to light, confused customers couldn't understand what was happening.

The problem is that this punishes consumers, who face either lower quality service, or higher costs. Telecom companies could essentially set up a toll service, and those costs will get passed on to consumers either directly, in the form of higher broadband costs, or indirectly by companies that are forced to pay more to have their content carried across the Internet.

This is bad for innovation and bad for our wallets.

A few months ago, the FCC ruled that Comcast had engaged in such a practice, a decision that net neutrality supporters hailed for finally creating a precedent. But clearly, confusion remains.

In the Journal story, for instance, Google is apparently asking ISPs for permission to co-locate its servers into their facilities so its content can be physically closer to end users, and thus be delivered more quickly. Companies such as Akamai of Cambridge, Mass., have made big businesses out of providing such services.

Richard Whitt, Google's Washington telecom and media counsel, wrote on the company's public policy blog: "Despite the hyperbolic tone and confused claims in Monday's Journal story, I want to be perfectly clear about one thing: Google remains strongly committed to the principle of net neutrality."

Clearly, some folks thought this ran afoul of net neutrality principles. I'd disagree, since such a service in effect keeps some types of traffic off the Internet and helps reduce congestion.

But that wasn't the only area of dispute. In a blog post, Lessig noted that he had always supported the concept that service providers should be allowed to provide different tiers of service, allowing some companies such as Google to pay more for access to faster networks. Lessig acknowledged that some members of the net neutrality community disagree. Lessig writes: "But the suggestion that the position is 'recent' is baseless. If I'm wrong, I've always been wrong."

With all due respect, he's wrong.

Among those who agree with me is Ben Scott, a policy director for the Free Press, a consumer advocacy group based in Washington. I chatted with Scott on Monday about the Journal story. Scott noted that while Lessig sat on the Free Press board, they had a healthy disagreement on this piece of the puzzle.

"If you create a super tier, and it's a million dollars a month, what happens is that the big guys go in and bid up the price, and it becomes a barrier to entry," Scott said.

Agreed. Clearing up the confusion over such unsettled issues will be good for everyone. Scott also noted that with Obama coming in, codifying net neutrality has become a question of "not if, but when."

The answer should be sooner, not later.

Contact Chris O'Brien at cobrien@mercurynews.com or (415) 298-0207. Follow on Twitter at sjcobrien and read his blog at blogs.mercurynews.com/obrien.

Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122929270127905065.html

DECEMBER 15, 2008
Google Wants Its Own Fast Track on the Web Article
By VISHESH KUMAR and CHRISTOPHER RHOADS

The celebrated openness of the Internet -- network providers are not supposed to give preferential treatment to any traffic -- is quietly losing powerful defenders.

Google Inc. has approached major cable and phone companies that carry Internet traffic with a proposal to create a fast lane for its own content, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Google has traditionally been one of the loudest advocates of equal network access for all content providers.

At risk is a principle known as network neutrality: Cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines are supposed to treat all traffic the same -- nobody is supposed to jump the line.

But phone and cable companies argue that Internet content providers should share in their network costs, particularly with Internet traffic growing by more than 50% annually, according to estimates. Carriers say that to keep up with surging traffic, driven mainly by the proliferation of online video, they need to boost revenue to upgrade their networks. Charging companies for fast lanes is one option.

One major cable operator in talks with Google says it has been reluctant so far to strike a deal because of concern it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.

"If we did this, Washington would be on fire," says one executive at the cable company who is familiar with the talks, referring to the likely reaction of regulators and lawmakers.

Separately, Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc. have withdrawn quietly from a coalition formed two years ago to protect network neutrality. Each company has forged partnerships with the phone and cable companies. In addition, prominent Internet scholars, some of whom have advised President-elect Barack Obama on technology issues, have softened their views on the subject.

The contentious issue has wide ramifications for the Internet as a platform for new businesses. If companies like Google succeed in negotiating preferential treatment, the Internet could become a place where wealthy companies get faster and easier access to the Web than less affluent ones, according to advocates of network neutrality. That could choke off competition, they say.

For computer users, it could mean that Web sites by companies not able to strike fast-lane deals will respond more slowly than those by companies able to pay. In the worst-case scenario, the Internet could become a medium where large companies, such as Comcast Corp. in cable television, would control both distribution and content -- and much of what users can access, according to neutrality advocates.

The developments could test Mr. Obama's professed commitment to network neutrality. "The Internet is perhaps the most open network in history, and we have to keep it that way," he told Google employees a year ago at the company's Mountain View, Calif., campus. "I will take a back seat to no one in my commitment to network neutrality."

But Lawrence Lessig, an Internet law professor at Stanford University and an influential proponent of network neutrality, recently shifted gears by saying at a conference that content providers should be able to pay for faster service. Mr. Lessig, who has known President-elect Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of Chicago, has been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications industry.

The shifting positions concern some purists. "What they're talking about is selling you the right to skip ahead in the line," says Ben Scott, policy director of Free Press, a Washington-based advocacy group. "It would mean the first part of your business plan would be a deal with AT&T to get into their super-tier -- that is anathema to a culture of innovation."

Advocates of network neutrality believe it has helped the Internet drive the technology revolution of the past two decades, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

The concept of network neutrality originated with the phone business. The nation's longtime telephone monopoly, nicknamed Ma Bell, and its regional successors were prohibited from giving any public phone call preference in how quickly it was connected. When the Internet first boomed in the 1990s, content largely traveled via telephone line, and the rule survived by default.

'Dumbpipes'

The carriers picked up the unflattering nickname "dumbpipes," underscoring their strict noninterference in the Internet traffic surging over their networks. The name heightened resentment among the carriers toward the soaring wealth of the content providers, such as Amazon.com Inc., that couldn't exist without the networks of the telecom and cable companies.

In August 2005, amid a deregulatory environment, the FCC weakened network neutrality to a set of four "guiding principles." The step had the effect of making the FCC's power to enforce network neutrality subject to interpretation, emboldening those looking for ways around it.

Stirring the waters further, major phone companies including AT&T and Verizon announced they intended to create new fast lanes on the Internet -- and would charge content companies a toll to use it. They claimed Internet companies had been getting a free ride.

That unleashed a firestorm of criticism. A diverse group including Internet companies Google, Microsoft and Amazon joined the likes of the Christian Coalition, the National Rifle Association and the pop singer Moby in what they characterized as a fight to "save the Internet." The coalition claimed such steps could endanger freedom of speech.

Advocates of network neutrality also claimed that dismantling the rule would be the first step toward distributors gaining control over content, since they could dictate traffic according to fees charged to content providers. The fortunes of a certain Web site, in other words, might depend on how much it could pay network providers, rather than on its popularity.

That concern would grow if the carriers themselves offer content, which some have tried, with mixed success. AT&T, the country's largest broadband provider, recently launched its own online video service, called VideoCrawler, to compete with YouTube and others.

"One way AT&T can win that competition is to give their own video service preferential treatment on their network," says Robert Topolski, a networking engineer based in Portland, Ore. An AT&T spokesman says the company has no plans to give VideoCrawler preferential treatment on its network.

Mr. Topolski discovered that Comcast was slowing a video file-sharing service called BitTorrent. That discovery eventually led to sanctions against Comcast by the FCC. Comcast has appealed the decision, arguing the FCC did not have the authority to make such a ruling.

In 2006, Microsoft felt strongly enough about the issue that it wrote Congress to declare that saving network neutrality "could dictate whether the U.S. will continue to lead the world in Internet-related technologies."

The debate eventually reached a stalemate. Legislation to codify network neutrality failed to pass, and carriers backed off their plans for a tiered Internet.

During his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama spoke frequently about the Internet, which was a critical tool in his grass-roots effort to reach new voters, and the importance of network neutrality. "Once providers start to give privilege to some Web sites and applications over others, then the smaller voices get squeezed out," he told Google employees a year ago when he campaigned at the company. "And then we all lose."

Obama Advisers

But some of those who advise the new president on technology have changed their view on network neutrality. Stanford's Mr. Lessig, for one, has softened his opposition to variable service tiers. At a conference, he argued that carriers won't become kingmakers so long as the faster service at a higher price is available to anyone willing to pay it.

"There are good reasons to be able to prioritize traffic," Mr. Lessig said later in an interview. "If everyone had to pay the same rates for postal service, than you wouldn't be able to differentiate between sending a greeting card to your grandma versus sending an overnight letter to your lawyer."

Some telecom experts say that broadband is the most profitable service offered by phone and cable companies, and they are simply trying to offset declining revenue from their traditional phone business.

In the two years since Google, Microsoft, Amazon and other Internet companies lined up in favor of network neutrality, the landscape has changed. The Internet companies have formed partnerships with phone and cable companies, making them more dependent on one another.

Microsoft, which appealed to Congress to save network neutrality just two years ago, has changed its position completely. "Network neutrality is a policy avenue the company is no longer pursuing," Microsoft said in a statement. The Redmond, Wash., software giant now favors legislation to allow network operators to offer different tiers of service to content companies.

Microsoft has a deal to provide software for AT&T's Internet television service. A Microsoft spokesman declined to comment whether this arrangement affected the company's position on network neutrality.

Amazon's popular digital-reading device, called the Kindle, offers a dedicated, faster download service, an arrangement Amazon has with Sprint. That has prompted questions in the blogosphere about whether the service violates network neutrality.

"Amazon continues to support adoption of net neutrality rules to protect the longstanding, fundamental openness of the Internet," Amazon said in a statement. It declined to elaborate on its Kindle arrangement.

Amazon had withdrawn from the coalition of companies supporting net neutrality, but it recently was listed once again on the group's Web site. It declined to comment on whether carriers should be allowed to prioritize traffic.

Yahoo now has a digital subscriber-line partnership with AT&T. Some have speculated that the deal has caused Yahoo to go silent on the network-neutrality issue.

An AT&T spokesman said the company should be able to strike any deal it sees fit with content companies. Yahoo said in a statement that carriers and content companies "should find a consensus on how best to ensure that Americans have access to a world-class Internet."

Google Connections

Google, with its dominant market position and its perceived ties to the Obama team, may hold the most sway. One of President-elect Obama's most visible supporters during the campaign was Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive officer. Mr. Schmidt remains an adviser during the transition.

Eric Schmidt

Google's proposed arrangement with network providers, internally called OpenEdge, would place Google servers directly within the network of the service providers, according to documents reviewed by the Journal. The setup would accelerate Google's service for users. Google has asked the providers it has approached not to talk about the idea, according to people familiar with the plans.

Asked about OpenEdge, Google said only that other companies such as Yahoo and Microsoft could strike similar deals if they desired. But Google's move, if successful, would give it an advantage available to very few.

The matter could come to a head quickly. In approving AT&T's 2006 acquisition of Bell South, the FCC made AT&T agree to shelve plans for a fast lane for 30 months. That moratorium expires in the middle of next year. A Democratic lawmaker has already promised new network-neutrality legislation early in 2009. And a new chairman of the FCC could take a stricter position on forcing companies to comply with network neutrality.

Richard Whitt, Google's head of public affairs, denies the company's proposal would violate network neutrality. Nevertheless, he says he's unsure how committed President-elect Obama will remain to the principle.

"If you look at his plans," says Mr. Whitt, "they are much less specific than they were before."

Write to Vishesh Kumar at vishesh.kumar@wsj.com and Christopher Rhoads at christopher.rhoads@wsj.com

AT&T to try limits on monthly Internet traffic

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081104/D9487NGO0.html

AT&T to try limits on monthly Internet traffic
Nov 4, 2008
By PETER SVENSSON

NEW YORK (AP) - AT&T Inc., the country's largest Internet service provider, is testing the idea of limiting the amount of data that subscribers can use each month.

AT&T will initially apply the limits in Reno, Nev., and see about extending the practice elsewhere.

Increasingly, Internet providers across the country are placing such limits on the amount of data users can upload and download each month, as a way to curb a small number of "bandwidth hogs" who use a lot of the network capacity. For instance, 5 percent of AT&T's subscribers take up 50 percent of the capacity, spokesman Michael Coe said Tuesday.

But the restrictions that Internet providers are setting are tentative. And the companies differ on what limits to set and whether to charge users for going beyond the caps.

Starting in November, AT&T will limit downloads to 20 gigabytes per month for users of their slowest DSL service, at 768 kilobits per second. The limit increases with the speed of the plan, up to 150 gigabytes per month at the 10 megabits-per-second level.

To exceed the limits, subscribers would need to download constantly at maximum speeds for more than 42 hours, depending on the tier. In practice, use of e-mail and the Web wouldn't take a subscriber anywhere near the limit, but streaming video services like the one Netflix Inc. offers could. For example, subscribers who get downloads of 3 megabits per second have a monthly cap of 60 gigabytes, which allows for the download of about 30 DVD-quality movies.

The limits will initially apply to new customers in the Reno area, AT&T said. Current users will be enrolled if they exceed 150 gigabytes in a month, regardless of their connection speed.

"This is a preliminary step to find the right model to address this trend," Coe said. The company may add another market to the test before the end of the year, he said.

Customers will be able to track their usage on an AT&T Web site. The company will also contact people who reach 80 percent of their limit. After a grace period to get subscribers acquainted with the system, those who exceed their allotment will pay $1 per gigabyte, Coe said.

Comcast Corp., the nation's second-largest Internet service provider and AT&T's competitor in Reno, last month officially began a nationwide traffic limit of 250 gigabytes per subscriber. Comcast doesn't charge people extra for going over the limit, but will cancel service after repeated warnings. Previously, it had a secret limit.

Two other ISPs, Time Warner Cable Inc. and FairPoint Communications Inc., are planning or testing traffic limits as low as 5 gigabytes per month, which is easily exceeded by watchers of DVD-quality online video.

Among the largest ISPs, Verizon Communications Inc. is a holdout, and has said it does not plan to limit downloads.

Comcast Sets Monthly Bandwidth Limit

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150451/comcast_sets_monthly_bandwidth_limit_for_customers.html

Comcast Sets Monthly Bandwidth Limit for Customers
Grant Gross, IDG News Service
Thursday, August 28, 2008

Comcast, the largest provider of cable-based broadband service in the U.S., will limit residential customers to 250 gigabytes of bandwidth a month beginning Oct. 1, the company announced late Thursday.

Comcast will contact customers who go above the 250G byte limit and ask them to curtail their use, Comcast said. If a customer goes over the monthly limit again during the following six months, Comcast will suspend service for a year.

Currently, Comcast contacts high-bandwidth customers and will suspend their accounts if they don't curb their use, but it has not set a firm bandwidth limit until now. Most customers contacted about their bandwidth usage agree to limit their activity, according to Charlie Douglas, Comcast's director of communications.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission struck down Comcast's past network management practice of slowing BitTorrent peer-to-peer traffic in an effort to reduce congestion. The FCC ruled that Comcast was violating so-called net neutrality principles by targeting a certain kind of Internet traffic.

The new bandwidth cap will affect less than 1 percent of Comcast customers, Douglas said. Those customers "are using so much bandwidth that they are degrading the experience of other users," he added. "Two-hundred-and-fifty gigabytes is an extremely large amount of data."

Some high-bandwidth users have asked Comcast to identify a specific cap so they know where the line is, Douglas added. Some other broadband providers also warn customers about excessive bandwidth use.

An average Comcast customer uses two to three gigabytes of bandwidth a month, Comcast said. To reach the 250G-byte limit, a customer would have to do one of the following: send 50 million e-mails, download 62,500 songs or download 125 standard-definition movies, the company said in its announcement.

Comcast has also looked at charging high-bandwidth users additional fees, and it still has not ruled out doing so in the future, Douglas said.

Comcast is also looking at "de-prioritizing" heavy users' traffic during times of network congestion. The plan Comcast is considering would slow heavy users' traffic for up to 20 minutes during times of the most congestion.

Comcast will notify customers of the new bandwidth limits using several methods, including banner ads at Comcast.net and notices sent with monthly bills, the company said. Some net neutrality advocates criticized Comcast for not telling customers of its previous network management plan to slow P-to-P traffic at times.

Some net neutrality advocates have said Comcast's new network management plans of targeting individual users is preferable to blocking Web applications. But others have suggested that those efforts may be equal to penalizing their best customers.

Internet Users Stop Comcast

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/timothy-karr/internet-users-stop-comca_b_112153.html

Timothy Karr
Internet Users Stop Comcast, Net Neutrality Win on the Horizon
July 11, 2008

Read More: Cable, Comcast, Fcc, Internet, Kevin Martin, Net Neutrality, SavetheInternet.Com, Media News

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin is taking action against Comcast for illegally violating Net Neutrality, after a coalition of Net users and activists caught the cable giant blocking open access to the Internet.

Martin told the Associated Press last night that Comcast had "arbitrarily" blocked Internet access and failed to disclose to consumers what it was doing. "We found that Comcast's actions in this instance violated our principles."

Topolski Ignites the Fire

The move is the agency's response to a complaint filed by Free Press and members of SavetheInternet.com, which called for severe action against Comcast for jamming people using popular "file-sharing" applications. But the story goes back further than that.

Organized People Beat Organized Money

Martin's action -- to be voted on by the full FCC in three weeks - would be a major milestone for the growing open Internet movement, marking another defeat of entrenched corporate interests in Washington and a stunning victory for ordinary people who want to control their Internet experience.

If adopted by the FCC, Martin's order could set an historic precedent for protecting the future of the open Internet. Against every ounce of conventional wisdom in Washington, everyday citizens and consumer advocates have taken on a major corporation and won a major victory.

The decision follows nearly a year of organizing and action by a growing alliance of bloggers, Internet innovators, consumer groups, organizations from across the political spectrum, and Net activists from all walks of life.

In that time, tens of thousands of people wrote the FCC in support of Net Neutrality after Free Press filed its complaint against Comcast and asked the agency to levy the largest fine in its history.

Comcast's "Shame"

Hundreds of others packed public hearings to speak out against would-be gatekeepers (even after Comcast notoriously attempted to keep them out by hiring drowsy seat warmers in Boston).

The Power of One

But it all started with one person. When barbershop quartet enthusiast Robb Topolski found Comcast was preventing him from sharing legal music files with other fans, he took to his computer and launched a one-man investigation.

Topolski uncovered conclusive evidence that Comcast was secretly blocking his uploads. His concerns echoed those of hundreds of other Comcast users, who had taken to the blogs and chat rooms to express their dismay.

He posted his findings on a single tech blog. This had a cascading effect, and soon dozens of others were writing about his findings. The Associated Press and the Electronic Frontier Foundation conducted their own investigations with similar results. The evidence was indisputable: Comcast was blocking the Internet.

The wheels of government started churning. This time for the better.

The Fight Continues

Martin's move is a major victory. But this fight is far from over. His order has yet to pass, though it seems likely. The cable companies -- and the phone companies, too, even though they're trying to distance themselves from Comcast -- will be back with their money, lawyers and phony grassroots groups to try to take control of the Internet and establish themselves as gatekeepers.
Companies like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby Washington to gut Net Neutrality and hand over control of the Internet to them. But they so far have failed to overcome widespread and organized public opposition.

Today we can celebrate a huge victory for real people, but we need to continue this fight to send a clear signal to the next Congress and White House that standing with regular people for a free and open Internet is a winning proposition.

Bill Bars Web Traffic Discrimination

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5htAirrv3e2e73w_D291pRe4yLPOwD8UPL6UO1

Bill Bars Web Traffic Discrimination
By DIBYA SARKAR
2-13-8

WASHINGTON (AP) — A Democratic lawmaker on Wednesday proposed legislation to stop network providers from playing traffic cop on the Internet.

Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee's subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet, introduced the bill to promote the principle, known as "Net neutrality," of treating all Internet traffic equally.

Markey, who introduced similar legislation in 2006, said the bill doesn't regulate the Internet, only makes sure the rules of online engagement are fair. His spokeswoman said he wanted to defuse critics' arguments that the bill amounts to regulation, which she called inaccurate.

"It does, however, suggest that the principles which have guided the Internet's development and expansion are highly worthy of retention, and it seeks to enshrine such principles in the law as guide stars for U.S. broadband policy," Markey said of The Internet Freedom Preservation Act

Phone and cable companies say they want the freedom to charge content providers for access to the Internet's fast lane. Any legislation affirming Net neutrality, they argue, would harm investment and innovation in the Internet.

The Hands Off the Internet coalition, whose members include AT&T, Qwest Communications International Inc. and others, said Markey's bill leaves regulatory fingerprints, regardless of what he calls it.

Supporters of the bill, including Google and public interest groups, contend it just protects consumers without hamstringing development or driving up costs.

The bill, co-sponsored by Rep. Chip Pickering, R-Miss., requires the Federal Communications Commission to assess whether broadband providers are "blocking, thwarting or unreasonably interfering" with consumers' rights to access, send, receive or offer content, applications and services over networks.

The FCC would also be required to determine whether providers charge extra for certain services and if it's lawful.

The bill also requires the agency to hold at least eight summits around the country to get input from various groups about Internet service competition and services.

An FCC spokesman declined to comment on pending legislation.

The bill was drafted in response to reports that some companies, including Comcast Corp., are unfairly stifling communications over the Internet.

Markey spokeswoman Jessica Schafer said the agency already has the authority to enforce such practices.

She cited the agency's investigation of Philadelphia-based Comcast, the country's second-largest Internet provider. On Tuesday, Comcast told the FCC in formal comments that hampering some file-sharing by its subscribers was a justifiable way to keep Web traffic flowing for everyone.

Consumer groups, lawmakers and other critics have complained that Comcast violated Net neutrality. The company declined to comment on Markey's bill.

Schafer also said a North Carolina telephone company, Madison River Communications LLC, paid $15,000 to the FCC in 2005 to settle allegations it blocked phone lines that customers used to make calls over the Internet. Under the settlement, the company could not block Internet calls in the future, but did not admit to violating any rules.

Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/12/17/five-worse-telco-moments-of-2007/

Ten Worst Telco Moments of 2007

A few years ago, President Bush pledged that every corner of America would have high-speed Internet by 2007. Well, the year is drawing to a close, and millions of Americans still do not have access. The United States has dropped from fourth to 15th in the world in broadband penetration in the past five years — a result of a telco stranglehold on both broadband markets and broadband policy that puts their profits before innovation and the public good.

But that’s not all. Even when Americans can get online, an open and neutral Internet is not guaranteed. In the past year, phone and cable companies have been throttling the free flow of information on the Internet and cell phones — giving us a harrowing glimpse of a world without Net Neutrality.

A review of the 10 Worst Telco Moments of 2007 (in no particular order):

1. White House Declares ‘Mission Accomplished’ for the Internet

“We have the most effective multiplatform broadband in the world,” the Bush administration’s top technologist, John Kneuer, told skeptical Web experts and the media in June, despite several international surveys that place the United States far behind countries in Asia and Europe.

Kneuer says the real problem is not bad policy, but faulty data in the surveys. While the Bush White House seemed over eager to declare broadband success, America’s failing report card told a story of a larger systems breakdown. “Previous generations put a toaster in every home and a car in every driveway as signs of economic progress,” Sen. John Kerry wrote in September. “To stay competitive, we should strive to do the same with nationwide broadband.”

Let’s hope our next president understands that ubiquitous broadband access needs to be more than a mirage.

2. Telcos Spy on Millions of Americans

For several years now, the nation’s largest telecommunications companies have been spying on their own customers without a warrant. In the process, they delivered to the federal government the private records of millions of Americans. Their excuse — national security in the face of a known terrorist threat — holds little weight when one considers that they’ve been spying on us with the NSA well in advance of the September 11 attacks.

Now, they are pushing a bill — “Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act” — that would grant complicit phone companies retroactive amnesty from prosecution for violations of our civil liberties. While a few, brave senators have stood in the way of the bill and refused to let the telcos off the hook, the legislation still stands a good chance of getting through.

3. Comcast is Busted for Blocking BitTorrent

In October, an Associated Press investigation revealed that Comcast - technically a cableco - was secretly blocking peer-to-peer file sharing programs like BitTorrent and Gnutella. Comcast’s blocking is a glaring violation of Net Neutrality.

BitTorrent is rapidly emerging as one of the most successful online platforms for the sharing of large files. Comcast has a natural incentive to keep customers watching movies and television shows through their system, not the Internet.. Despite the evidence, Comcast’s David Cohen told Ars Technica that Comcast does not block access to file sharing applications and that their practice is just “content shaping.” In response, SavetheInternet.com members filed a petition urging the FCC to stop Comcast from blocking Internet traffic and fine them for their violations.

And what can you do if you find out that you’ve been blocked by Comcast? Switch to AT&T or Verizon and suffer with slow DSL speeds and their own draconian terms of service. Free Press has sifted through the agreements of several Internet and cell phone providers and found similar language that reserves their right to cut off users on a whim.

4. AT&T and Verizon Censor Free Speech

In September, Verizon Wireless blocked NARAL Pro-Choice America’s efforts to send mobile text messages to its members. After a New York Times expose, the phone company reversed its policy, claiming it was a glitch.

A month earlier, during the live Lollapalooza webcast of a Pearl Jam concert, AT&T muted lead singer Eddie Vedder just as he launched into a lyric criticizing President Bush. AT&T launched its own bungled PR response after a flurry of criticism. But both companies refused to change internal policies which allowed them to censor in the future.

Their apologies aren’t cutting it anymore. Censorship by AT&T and Verizon is further proof that these corporate giants simply cannot be left at the controls of Internet content. These same providers handed customer phone records over to the NSA without a subpoena and are now strong-arming Congress for retroactive immunity (see No. 2). And they want us to trust them with the Internet?

5. Caught Red-Handed, Telcos Change Their Tune

For some time, phone and cable companies and their shills and lobbyists had been spinning Net Neutrality as a “solution in search of a problem.” But 2007 brought us a series of violations of Internet freedom which brought the “problem” into vivid relief for millions.

Undaunted, the shills quickly changed their tune, admitting that indeed some mistakes were made, but the telcos were merely implementing “reasonable network management” (aka content discrimination) to bring us the Internet that we all love and cherish. The moral of this story: Follow what the telcos do, not just what they say.

6. Media Insiders Suffer Telco-Vision

Don’t always believe the purveyors of conventional wisdom in Washington media. Some of these pundits are so steeped in their own “knowledge” that they get stuck spinning in place when faced with evidence to the contrary. This was the case for a chosen few who in 2007 hunkered down behind their laptops to write commentaries to convince the world that Net Neutrality was dead and gone. The issue is a “fading memory,” one crowed. It “barely raises a yawn” said another.

Their view of the world, however, rarely extends beyond the Potomac, where the Net Neutrality issue was leading the news and being vigorously debated along the campaign trail. Indeed, Net Neutrality emerged as the No. 1 issue that thousands of visitors to TechPresident selected to be answered by all the presidential candidates. So the next time an insider tells you that Net Neutrality is dead, I advise you to check his pulse instead. Then point out the more than 1.5 million Americans who are taking action to protect the free and open Internet.

7. The iPhone Gets Shackled

The introduction of the iPhone over the summer highlighted both the promise and the problems of America’s wireless marketplace. On the one hand, it demonstrated the promises of a truly mobile Internet. On the other hand, the iPhone raised serious questions about the fact that most every mobile phone consumer is locked into a long-term contracts, using a phone that has been “crippled” by carriers, with significant penalties for switching to a new provider.

The iPhone was shackled to AT&T. The reason? We have allowed carriers to exert almost complete gatekeeper control over all devices, services and content in the wireless sector — a move that has left U.S. innovation generations behind other nations. Reviewing the state of the wireless market in America, New York Times blogger David Pogue called American carriers “calcified, conservative and way behind their European and Asian counterparts.” Despite recent efforts to open devices, the lockdown of cell phones remains the dominant characteristic of most every user agreement in the country.

8. Bush’s Justice Dept. Files Against Net Neutrality

In September, departing Attorney General Alberto Gonzales filed a brief with the Federal Communications Commission, urging the agency to oppose Net Neutrality. The DOJ stated that broadband companies like AT&T should be able to erect toll booths and filter traffic — upending the even playing field that has made the Web an unrivaled engine of democratic discourse and new ideas.

The DOJ move once again proved the point: Powerful corporate and government gatekeepers are working together to dismantle Internet freedoms and impose their will upon the Web. By moving against Net Neutrality, Gonzales was merely pulling last-minute favors for friends in high places. Soon thereafter, Free Press submitted a FOIA request to shed light on the DOJ’s recent hit job against Net Neutrality and uncover whether industry lobbyists or White House politics had a hand in this unusual action. We’re still waiting for a response.

9. FCC’s Rosy Broadband Report Wilts Under Scrutiny

In February, the FCC released its biannual report on the U.S. broadband market. On the surface, the numbers sounded good. High-speed Internet lines increased by 26 percent during the first half of 2006, and broadband was reportedly available in 99 percent of all U.S. ZIP codes. But the broadband reality is much darker. According to Free Press Research Director Derek Turner, the FCC used an “absurd standard” to measure broadband — 200 kilobits per second. “That was barely fast enough to surf in 1999, but is far below what’s needed to enjoy streaming video, VoIP, flash animation or other common Internet applications.”

Indeed, speeds are much slower than what’s available in the rest of the world. Half of all U.S. broadband connections are slower than 2.5 megabits per second — yet in countries like Japan and South Korea, they’re rolling out 100 megabit services. And there’s no real competition. 98 percent of high-speed residential lines in America are provided by incumbent cable or telecom companies. Using ZIP codes alone vastly overstates the availability and competition for broadband services. While the FCC’s data has been widely debunked, the telco lobby crowed that the FCC had proven beyond a doubt that the American broadband marketplace was a haven of free-market competition — which leads us to our final “worst moment.”

10. More Astroturf Sprouts Up, Speads Lies

Washington policymaking has spawned a cottage industry of phony front groups put in place by phone and cable companies eager to spread misinformation about anything that threatens their control over the network. Nowhere is this more evident than in their campaign to defeat open Internet initiatives.

Throughout the year, companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast have funneled millions of dollars toward “Astroturf” front groups such as the disingenuously named NetCompetition.org, Hands Off the Internet and The Future Faster. For example, Hands Off the Internet — which sounds like a citizens group to protect the Internet from gatekeepers — is actually a telco-backed lobbying group that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on video PSAs and “grassrootsy” Web campaigns aimed at eliminating efforts to restore Net Neutrality protections and spread open access.

True to form, these front groups spent much of 2007 cranking out phony PR, mouthing telco taking points and casting doubt against any effort to ensure that the Internet is open, neutral and free of interference by gatekeepers. And these groups aren’t going away soon. Expect to see them on our worst moments list at the end of 2008.

We Still Need Net Neutrality Legislation

http://www.freepress.net/news/24353

We Still Need Net Neutrality Legislation
From Information Week, July 4, 2007
By David DeJean

We haven’t heard much about net neutrality legislation lately. That could be because the current Congress might actually be able to pass it, and opponents like AT&T and Verizon are laying low, spreading lobbying money, and trying to wait out that shocking possibility. That makes the Federal Trade Commission’s anti-net neutrality announcement last week even more puzzling. Was it intended as a warning from the Bush administration to Congress to back off, or was it yet another shake of the money tree?

The news story about the FTC report notes that “the FTC sided with high-speed Internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon,” and trotted out once again hollow justifications like “such rules could stifle innovation” and “”This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more — not less – competition,” which it probably didn’t even think up itself, but copied from industry propaganda.

The paradox is that these providers have been working very hard to stifle innovation and move toward less competition for years – take their well-funded resistance, at both national and state levels, to public WiFi and similar local initiatives, for example. U.S. Internet service providers deliver less service for higher prices than many other countries around the world. In April, when the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held hearings on broadband in this country versus others, the committee heard that the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) had just lowered the United States to the number 15 spot on the list.

Technological innovation in broadband access is a threat to corporate profits, and the FTC report comes down on the side not of the public interest but of the private interests.

As a government policy, this isn’t working. Communication Workers of America union puts it this way:

Our reliance on market forces, deregulation, and inadequate governmental programs has not served us well. We invest relatively less on communications; we are charged more for slower speeds; millions encounter a significant digital divide based on income and geography, and unionized jobs with good wages and benefits are being replaced by low-wage jobs with less training and higher turnover.

Of course, the CWA has a vested interest in this – the more broadband Internet access there is in the United States, the more jobs there will be for well-trained, well-paid members of their union. But that’s a better fit with the public interest than the FTC’s position, as far as I can tell.

The idea that net neutrality would somehow diminish competition is a strange one that I’ve never seen actually explained. It’s almost as strange as the FTC’s contention that we we live in a country where “the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access … generally is moving toward more — not less — competition,” in the words of FTC chairman Deborah Majoras.

Where exactly does she live? Not where Gigi Sohn and I live. Ms. Sohn is the president of Public Knowledge, a consumer advocacy group, and she said of the FCC report, “”Despite the fervent wishes of the FTC staff, there is not a competitive market for high-speed Internet services. New technologies, particularly wireless technologies, are not soon going to have the same robust qualities or market penetration as the duopoly cable and telephone-company services.” That’s the situation in my town, and in most towns across America where you can get high-speed broadband access at all.

Another quote from the Reuters piece I loved: “Proposals to impose new regulation actually threaten further advancements in broadband Internet connections. That hurts consumers by denying them new and better services,” said Verizon executive vice president Tom Tauke.

Verizon and AT&T and Comcast and other high-speed Internet service providers have seemed to be far more interested in innovating their revenues by cutting themselves into the content business than in innovating their technology. Net neutrality legislation would help drive innovation by clarifying the service provider’s business and focusing them on actually advancing broadband Internet connections, which this country sorely needs, as a way of building their bottom lines. That’s what the FTC and the FCC should be working on – how to get higher access speeds and truly innovative delivery technologies into the marketplace, not protecting their corporate masters from having to compete with them.