Yeah, that's what is about to happen.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/07/06/ftc-abandons-net-neutrality/

I fail to understand how granting a few interests the ability to engage in content discrimination creates a free market, but that's the idea supporting this mess.

Back when ISP consolidation was happening, many of the smaller, full service, ISPs were shut out. They were replaced by mega ISPs, who do almost nothing of any real value, but collect dollars any way they can.

I'm lucky in that I still get to deal with an old school small ISP that knows my name, etc... I've a real net connection, and server access, the whole bit.

Anyway, when the ISP disaster happened, this problem was mentioned and appears to be coming to pass right on schedule. Step one was to eliminate the many points of access in favor of corporate run ones. That's been largely done for all but a small fraction of consumers either aware of the difference, and lucky enough to be where they could actually make the choice.

Step two will be using the central choke points to promote (discriminate) content based on dollars. You all know the drill. Those with the dollars really don't give a fuck about those without.

This means us!

From here, open systems will be demoted, open services, things like the Google desktop, Internet blogs and discussion venues, etc... will all be demoted in favor of:

-Internet movie downloads
-Preferred media content (read corporate sites that suck)
-Business traffic of all kinds (forget cool things like Skype, Talkshoe, etc...)
-Service quality assurances for the right price.

Bottom line: They will be able to make your connection as shitty as they want to, so that you will be strongly encouraged to consume the content they prefer. That's the content they are receiving dollars to carry reliably, and their own content.

One obvious conflict of interest would be content critical of these companies. Comcast blocked a site, critical of them, repeatedly. Why? Because it exposed business practices that were harmful to people.

Now, under a non-neutral (non equal) Internet, suppressing content and communication that is not favorable to established and powerful interests is not only easily done, but legal and encouraged by our government supposedly working for us.

This is a huge ass conflict and another big hit to our nation, right in line with all the others.

Make your calls, write your letters, etc...

This one will matter more than people think.

And yes, this means one should never again vote GOP! The list of shit these asses have damaged and or done to us is just too long to list.

how do we get the masses to understand what is happening?

I'm surprised that one issue not mentioned more frequently in relation to net neutrality is the money that telecom companies are missing out on because of voice-over-IP technology. I have to admit that I am somewhat ignorant of how the telecom companies that operate Internet infrastructure make most of their money and how many such companies are operating today.

What is disturbing is that anyone operating any part of the connection between you and the Internet sites that you are trying to access can now restrict your connection speed at their own whims. Could the Internet of the future be one in which most sites are slow because everyone is trying to get money out of the Internet site operators and nobody is able (or wants to) pay all of the ISPs and the owners of the telecomm infrastructure used to deliver the content?

Skep: I don't know. It's a really difficult topic, largely because the interplay between how the net operates and it's impact on society is a complex thing. It's also not evident to a lot of people, who are just users. The rules, means and methods that brought them the net they use are not understood, just the result.

Hate to self-pimp Leggig again, but his books are simply the reference for these things. Trouble with those is he's a fricking genius --difficult to distill these things down to little sound bites.

Alfredo: Yep. Some of the trouble lies in our regulation. We granted these entities public rights of way, in return for monopolies on their infrastructure investments. I believe in market forces, and they were not properly put into play here. So, we ended up with large pools of users locked in to specific service providers.

This is true for most of the US. Their demand to make the most of that investment is not checked with any obligations to the public. So we get service bundling, discriminatory pricing, etc... We don't get tech innovation, last mile build outs that make good sense and or leverage newer tech.

Consolidation of media properties also means the strong desire to deliver content on a push, or what is now going to be known as a strong shove with dollars and or negative incentives being applied to non favorable (read non dollar producing) information.

Other parts of the problem involve old business models, pricing tiers, long distance, etc... VOIP breaks all those barriers in that the network just runs. There is no differentiation between a local and long distance call, thus revenue is diminished and with it goes any incentive to innovate in this area, despite plenty of value adds being possible.

There is a lot of money to be made adding value to information, but this takes work, investments and some degree of risk to get done. It is considerably easier to simply repurpose old content models and structure things to fit older busines models.

This is seen over and over here where information technology is concerned. IMHO, it's a real issue we've not even come close to dealing with.

The real value is people to people communication. Entertainment is only a small aspect, but it's really easy to scale and deliver --and that's the key right there. Anyone who really uses the Internet knows nobody delivers anything. People consume it --if it has value.

That disconnect is driving this mess in that the open nature of the net is seen as a problem where delivery of things is concerned. I could write a short book on it, and it just won't matter...

Maybe we just are not yet smart enough to have an Internet like this one...

There is some hope though. We do have some fairly powerful interests who grok this stuff. Perhaps, openness will depend on funding these entities and trusting them to do the right thing. That sucks though. Nobody really wants forced trust... Given the track record I've seen, that "just trust us with all the power" model sucks ass. Always has, always will.

Really using the Internet might regress to a blend of old school tech, with a mix of new school distributed tech.

The geeks are pissed, of course. So far, they've won every battle.

I believe this is at the root of this move to monitize the Internet. Perhaps putting dollars in the way will extend the status quo, where traditional media structure is concerned. Perhaps not...

The need to communicate, form ideas, innovate, liberate, etc... has always trumped dollars and lawyers. Maybe it's gonna have to get worse, people wake farther up, before it gets better.

Ok, I've been thinking about the framing on this. Here's a story that is more simple than most, and gets to the root of the Internet dynamic being dismantled right now.

Go back to a time before mass media was as potent as it is today. The advent of radio and television unified us as a nation, but that unity came with a price; namely, surrendering our trust to a few entities. This was necessary to make the tech work.

This is the root of the public interest element to media that has been shoved under the bus.

In that time, people engaged in local discourse. They had to because the alternatives were few. The result of this being the people made choices that benefitted them. An aggragation of these choices resulted in national and state policy that was a good overall solution.

This is all good and American.

Extreme positions were difficult to enact because framing the discussion to get people on board was not possible, generally speaking.

Mass media changed all of that. Now it's possible to put framing out there that impacts everyone every day. Suddenly we no longer have that level of discourse we used to.

This is corruption, as defined by Larry Lessig.

Now, our system is somewhat broken because we have some interests able to own a lot more mindshare than would otherwise be warranted. With the change in that dynamic, came changes in policy.

We see the rise of corporations being favored where policy is concerned, corruption on many levels being ignored, the public interest being marginalized and monitized for profit --not any ones good in particular.

That's where we are today. No issue goes by without heavy corporate framing, aimed at influencing the discussion, and most importantly: limiting people to people discussion!

Enter the Internet.

Now, we've got people ignoring the traditional media. As the number of people doing this grows (and I am one of these), so does the level of discussion that focuses on the interests of the people, not the established elite interests.

This forum, right here, that you are reading, right now, is a prime example of that. Our views expressed to one another break the framing all the time! Internet blog sites, mailing lists, discussion forums, news aggragation services, live citizen reporting, etc... all represent a strong focus back toward those things that matter to us, the people.

These things are gaining ground rapidly.

Witness the 2006 election cycle!

The Democratic victory is not the big story! It's nice, but a mere distraction to what the Internet did. Both parties saw their authority and established positions challenged by the people they are supposed to serve and represent.

We have people elected that would not even be on the map. Why? Because the people actually wanted them to be elected!

Despite this being how it is supposed to be, the mass media framing has largely marginalized this choice for us. We get to choose today, but said choice is pre-chosen and framed heavy to limit the scope of deliberations.

It's like the pseudo-choices every parent puts in front of their kids.

For the last two years in a row, traditional media mindshare has diminished. That mindshare has gone to Internet media forms, both old and new. People are getting news and opinion and delivering their own news and opinion to one another in growing numbers.

There is no downtrend to this period! None. It only grows. And that's where the Internet Equality (Neutrality) issue comes into play.

(continues)

Now, we've got a scenario where the established players have had to compete for a number of years in a row now and they have lost each and every year.

This is true, regardless of venue. Music, newspaper, television, etc...

It is clear the people want to interact and entertain on their terms. The current Internet is designed for this purpose. It is a free market where all comers can play, compete and earn their mindshare.

Read that again: WE HAVE A FREE INTERNET MARKET RIGHT NOW.

This change to allow content discrimination really is being framed wrong. The promise is better services and products, but really it's all about picking and choosing some services and products for us!

A non-neutral Internet means a move away from people to people communication and a concentrated effort to once again focus the mindshare on the traditional media companies.

ALL OF THESE ARE OWNED BY A SELECT FEW THAT GET TO CALL THE SHOTS.

At the end of the day, this is not about offering "better" products and services, but limiting communication and freedom, generally speaking. It's also about limiting the potential for change and this is why:

We, the people here, have the power of the vote. If we really want change, we can get it and there is actually very little the established powers can do, short of dismantling the nation and starting an all out fight over it.

So, what to do?

Convince the people that their interests are best served by those currently in control! Having a compliant media that occupies a majority mindshare solves this problem nicely.

It should be totally clear why and how the Internet is a problem in this regard. Only a few of us are really free thinkers. Most of us choose to trust others and consume information that helps us. Limiting the scope of that information and keeping the noise level down is key to maintaining our current direction.

And that's where it all breaks down for me personally. For those, who have bothered to leave the scope of traditional media mindshare, are thinking and doing what benefits them. Convincing these people this is an issue is a no brainer. Already done.

The masses need to be shown, somehow, their interests are not being served by the traditional media forms, means and methods. Ownership is a key to this, as is our style of regulation.

When the phrase free market is used, it most often refers to letting those with dollars make decisions that make them more dollars. This is supposed to be good for us, but the hook really is how, when there is no incentive for that to happen when competition is not in play.

Where traditional media is concerned, there is actually little real competition. We've got FOX -vs- CNN, but both of those serve elite corporate masters and both framings appeal to our ideologies, but limit scope to solutions that are mutually acceptable to elite interests.

Where the Internet is concerned, we have very little competition happening at the service provider level. The vast majority of Internet users are stuck with a coupla broadband choices tops and those choices are both owned by the same interests that own other media forms.

A small fraction of us get to choose their service provider, but it's often a tough deal, not advertized, etc...

I'm one of these, choosing a local ISP that does real Internet. Qwest did their level best to inhibit that choice, favoring MSN! Cut me off, delayed the transfer, failed to pay ISP, did not communicate, etc... took weeks to get done!

(and you think that just isn't an issue --think again.)

The best point I can make is related to the free market bit. Right now, the Internet takes all comers equally. One can setup a site, publish and become a star with few worries. This is where we got all the great blogs, commentary, grassroots movement for change, innovation in services, value adds, etc...

If this change goes through, the net no longer takes all comers equally. That's a discriminatory net, it's censorship, it's not a free market in that established players don't have to compete on merit (read their actual value proposition), only with dollars already accumulated.

End result will be a dumbing down of the now vibrant communication happening right now. Innovation will be limited to those things acceptable in the scope of a corporate board room, and communication in general will be diminished between groups of people looking to improve their lot.

It's a power grab and that's about all I can reall say about it at that level.

If you believe in free markets, then you must absolutely be against this move to allow Internet carriers to discriminate, period.

Getting back to media and it's impact on all of us. Look at the changes we've seen since the rise of mass media. How difficult is it to hear views that tie back to our founding values? What's American and what isn't?

Damn tough questions, given the massive framing aimed at diffusing them. Look at the manufactured Iraq war that's really about oil, but we sat through massive media framing that positioned it as a threat and a move to promote freedom!

Said freedom was for large companies to do what they wanted with the oil, not the Iraqis. The threat was an outright lie.

40 percent of us, on average, still believe Saddam was linked to 9/11 and that he had WMD's ready to destroy us.

This is what a non-neutral net will bring!

I know these things are not true because I could use the Internet to find the truth, ask questions, learn stuff from other interested Americans and people in general. The number of people today, doing what I am doing is only growing.

THERE IS NO DOWNWARD TREND IN THIS PERIOD.

As those numbers grow, watch the ongoing barrage of stories trying to marginalize those blogs and mailing lists, filled with extremists, and bad others not willing to think as they are told to think.

Think back over the number of stories where traditional media has been checked by interested and concerned citizens fact checking and publishing.

Without this, we would not understand the depth of the problem we have, in terms of dis-information, being presented today, via traditional media sources.

When they hose it up, where are the very public corrections? Back page of the thursday edition, between the fashion pages and lame local news nobody often reads. Often television does not publish them at all! Instead, these things are found deep in a website where nobody really sees them, but they can claim to have done the right thing according to the law.

It goes on and on and on.

With an equal Internet, one guy can see that correction, blog it and get the word out on the next news cycle! This is important as it improves the accuracy of the information and serves nicely to differentiate that commentary that is well supported by facts, from other commentary aimed at unabashedly influencing our thoughts and actions toward the goal of consuming goods and services, regardless if we really need them or not, and shitting cash.

Sorry all. Here is the very short and sweet framing:

Right now, everyone competes on a merit basis as traffic is handled equally. (this is not quite true, but is pretty damn true enough for this purpose.)

Going forward, it's dollars competeting with dollars, not merit.

See the difference?

Freedom and true interactivity are both very good things. Well said, Missing.

Another very interesting data point. I just heard an ad on AM radio. This AD was for a large news organization and it was pimping it's BLOGS.

Come to our place and read our blogs...

Of course those blogs are ok blogs. They are written by people, who have a vested interest in the status quo, media and policy wise.

Real blogs are written by people who have a vested interest in expressing their views. They are done from passion, concern, willingness to share knowledge accumulated, spark discussion, empower change, etc...

Some of them are just life stories, one day at a time too.

Over the last year, the framing has been about differentiating journalists from bloggers. The subtext here is sanctioned media production. When I blog, it's because I personally think it matters and am willing and find it worthwhile to tell others why.

When somebody from meganewsco blogs, it's part of the job description and maybe those other things.

Where fact checking, solid expression, etc... are concerned, blogging as a citizen more or less demands one think it through because ones reputation is on the line.

Being backed by a large corporation has similar implications, but there is a subtle difference: ones corporate reputation is on the line. Given the media consolidation we've seen, there is a clear conflict of interest present in corporate blogs that is not present in other blogs.

One could claim bias, but there is always bias. We've hashed that out here. Honesty and accuracy in presentation are what matter, not bias.

Where the large corporations and their framing is concerned, the conflict lies in accuracy and honesty in presentation.

If this were really not the case, every journalist everywhere would be reporting on the Net Neutrality issue because they live that life, have that passion, understand the value communication brings to the table. Every last one of them has their Internet haunts where they catch up on news and commentary they find both personally rewarding and valuable as they leverage it in their official capacity.

This is being done with ZERO PUBLIC DEBATE.

That alone should be all any of us needs to know.

Given the pervasive nature of online communication, it's impact on all our lives going forward, cannot be understated enough. Yet, we are not asked about these things!

Why?

Perhaps just getting more people to ask that question will be enough to make a difference in the longer term.

I'm pissed too. Normally, I would engage in some solid advocacy on this matter, as I have always done in the past. Sadly, life circumstances more or less limit it to a few postings and some discussion with others where time permits.

This too is an issue. We've a lot of pressure being applied to us, keeping us distracted and working hard to maintain status, if we can. That consumes a lot of time. Entertainment needs and family consume the rest, leaving little for discourse of the kind that makes us better.

This too is a deliberate thing.

Fuckers.

Thanks, Missing_kskd for the various different points. This is such a complex subject that I don't think that I can express my thoughts concisely, let alone propose any conclusions that I could stand by with some level of confidence. Instead, I will list some key points and concerns for folks to discuss or pick apart:

1) The timeline of the mainstream adoption of broadcast radio, broadcast television, and the Internet as mass media are very similar (if you discount the pre-WWII broadcasting going on in New York City and Los Angeles). Following this analogy, in 2007 the Internet is roughly where radio was in the mid 1930s or TV was in the early 1960s. In other words, this is a stage that is early enough that it is difficult to tell what the medium will be like 10, 15, or 20 years in the future, but the medium has gained enough critical mass that it has people in older media worried and to some extent retaliating to maintain some level of stability.

2) One important difference between the Internet and the two electronic media that preceded it was that the Internet was originally designed for use in an academic/research setting. The Internet of 1983-approximately 1993 was about professors, researchers, and students sharing their data and reports. Once the Internet became something for mass consumption, circa 1995, it was re-purposed as something to converge all existing entertainment, communications, and commerce. This created a variety of unresolved tensions that have played out in a number of ways over the years.

3a) I see blogging as a phenomenon very similar to fanzines and community radio. It is really great that there is still enough reverence for the First Ammendment that these media exist. However, these media formats leave me with the uneasiness that I am likely to be given a one-sided presentation that is more evangelical than informative because the person creating the piece has "a dog in the fight."

3b) Unfortunately, the way that I see stories repoted on more traditional broadcast media is not much better. Commercial broadcasters have been criticized for years about taming down or refusing to report stories that might scare away sponsors or put the parent company in a bad light. PBS, in my opinion, sometimes shows a bias in favoring government-based/public non-profit solutions to societal issues (one such example was a Frontline report on Internet availability).

4) I believe that there once was a benefical side to mass media: the economies of scale that they offer allow for some very ambtious projects. For instance, I don't think that it would have been possible for Edward R. Murrow and his crew to do their legendary investigative reporting without the resources of a national radio and television network. On a less serious side, I don't think that Elvis Presley and The Beatles could have influenced the sound of a generation of musicians, as well as overall youth tastes and culture to the degree that they did if they had not had the resources of their record companies and Top-40 radio. Unfortunately, this type of potential is largely being wasted today. I am thankful for every week that 60 Minutes and 20/20 stay on the air.

5) Some people have hypothesized that one day, there may be a government initiative analogous to the chartering of the Corporation For Public Broadcasting to create Web sites for the general public that focus on educational and cultural content that is not being included in major commercial sites. I don't consider this an optimal scenario, but I think that there is a good chance that it will happen.

Actualy, the internet was designed by and for the military. The old ARPA net was so the various military computer systems could exchange data, tehn they added the university's that were working on military contracts.

If the history is traced back to the ARPA net, then yes, it is true that these wide area networks were made for the military. In a sense, then, one could say that the "Internet" was re-purposed twice.

Thank you for contacting me about your concerns regarding "network neutrality" and ensuring that the Internet remains open and free for consumers.



I am a strong supporter of ensuring that networks are maintainers and not gatekeepers. The daily online activities of Americans should remain uninhibited, and they must retain freedom of choice in their content. Congress must be careful not to inadvertently enact legislation that restricts legitimate uses of the Internet or promote anti-competitive behavior.



Last session I supported and voted for Congressman Markey's Net Neutrality amendment, which would have prevented network service providers from degrading or giving preference to internet traffic from any content provider or application. It also restored important non-discrimination requirements enforced by the Federal Communications Commission that from the inception of the Internet until August of 2005 were binding on telecommunications carriers. Unfortunately, Markey's amendment did not pass, but the COPE bill did and is now under consideration by the Senate.



The potential regulation of the Internet will continue to be a topic of much debate in Congress as the web and Internet continue to mature and change. This session I will work to strengthen and protect the independence of the internet and will pay close attention to legislation that comes up in congress regarding network neutrality of the internet.



Thank you for voicing your concerns about this important issue. If you would like to receive updates about this issue and other topics that I am working on in Congress, please sign up on my website at www.blumenauer.house.gov .



Sincerely,
Earl Blumenauer
Member of Congress