Tell the FCC: Give us net neutrality and stop the Comcast Time Warner merger & Battle for the Net: Write and send your comment to the FCC urging them to preserve net neutrality before 15SEP14

15 SEP 14 is the deadline for public comment to the FCC / Federal Communications Commission on the proposed new rules regarding the internet and net neutrality. If the ISPs / Internet Service Providers, like verizon, comcast, aol, cox, at&t and time warner to name a few, get their way they will take over the internet and be allowed to regulate the speed with which we are able to access everything on the net based on how much we pay. Be assured it will not be cheap, these companies are not interested if fair and equal access for all to the internet, they are greedy and will increase fees for internet access to everything and if you don't pay for premium access you will be restricted to the slow lane on the net. Here is your chance to submit your comments to the FCC before 15 SEP, hope you do and that you share this with others. From +Daily Kos ....

Tell the FCC: Give us net neutrality and stop the Comcast Time Warner merger

Today (4 SEP 14), in a major speech about the future of broadband, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler somehow managed to avoid talking about net neutrality.

Given the topic of the speech, and the looming September 15 deadline for public comments on proposed FCC net neutrality rules, it’s concerning that he still has not come out in favor of protecting an open internet.

With September 15 approaching fast, it’s time to keep piling on the pressure. Tell the FCC to protect real net neutrality. Let Tom Wheeler know he can't avoid us.

Wheeler's speech focused mainly on how to expand access to and promote competition in the broadband marketplace--which sounds great. But, he also talked himself in circles, leaving us to wonder: Will he use Title II common carrier status to protect net neutrality and make the internet a public utility available to all? Will he deny the proposed mega-merger of Comcast and Time Warner?

If Wheeler truly wants to expand broadband and increase competition, this is his path:

• Use Title II authority to promote broadband expansion and to prevent Big Telecom from creating fast and slow lanes on the internet.
• Reject the Comcast Time Warner merger. If you want to promote competition, you don’t allow 2 of the 4 national broadband providers to merge.

Please, take a moment to sign and send a personal comment to FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler urging him to do the right thing.

Keep fighting,
Rachel Colyer
Campaign Director, Daily Kos

Battle for the Net: Write and send your comment to the FCC urging them to preserve net neutrality

September 15 marks the end of the public comment period at the FCC about the proposed net neutrality rules, which threaten the internet as we know it.

As the proposed rules stand, Big Cable and Telecom providers will legally be able to control the speed of service—including creating a fast lane for corporations, and slowing-down service to independent sites—like Daily Kos, to outright blocking content they don’t want on their networks. Fundamentally, we are in a fight to determine who controls the internet—people or corporations.

We can’t let this happen—which is why we are embroiled in the Battle for the Net.

We need you to help us win by presenting record-breaking numbers of unique public comments. Will you take a few minutes of your time to write a completely unique comment below, in your own words expressing why we need to preserve net neutrality on the internet? This unique expression is the most important way for you to make an impact at the FCC.

If you need some background, here it is:

Net neutrality has been the default state of the internet since its invention—internet service providers load all websites at the same speed. Now, Big Telecom wants to change the rules so they can extract more money from websites by making them pay to be served to customers at faster speeds.

In order to preserve net neutrality, the FCC needs to ban Big Telecom from creating these so-called “fast-lanes” which only large companies could afford. Start-ups and independent sites like Daily Kos would be left behind and crushed.

The FCC has tried protecting net neutrality twice before, and been defeated by Big Telecom in court both times. In order to legally prevent Big Telecom from destroying net neutrality once again, the FCC should assert authority it already has under Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1934 to regulate the internet as a public utility. This legal argument offers the most protection for real net neutrality to prevent ISPs from controlling content speed and blocking websites.

After a meeting with Chairman Wheeler in May, he told us that he pays the most attention to hand crafted comments in the docket which share personal experiences. Right now, net neutrality has already received an impressive percentage of personal comment. We need you to add to that number.

Join the growing number of organizations, businesses, and people who are committed to battle for the open internet.

Please use the form below to write and send the FCC your personal story and thoughts about why an open internet, free from corporate control by AT&T, Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon is essential to your life. Original, personal emails are basically the only public comments Chairman Wheeler takes seriously. (These comments will be part of a public record).

---

Below are a few writing prompts for you, if you need some inspiration. But please don't send exactly what we have suggested. The most important thing is that the email comes from you, in your words, to urge Chairman Wheeler to protect real net neutrality.

How do you feel about allowing Big Telecom to extract more money from companies that operate on the internet and allowing Internet Service Providers to make deals that would prioritize content consumers can access?

Are you a student, educator, business owner, tele-health user, or any other person that depends on the internet?

Are you concerned about the first amendment implications of prioritizing, blocking, or slowing down access to information on the internet?

Why are you concerned about a pay-to-play internet arrangement with Big Telecom as gatekeepers? Tell the FCC why net neutrality is important to you.

Links to look at: Net Neutrality: How did we get here and where do we go now, This 13-year-old wants you to help save the internet, John Oliver on net neutrality "Call it preventing cable company f***ery", and FCC Chair Wheeler's convoluted path to net neutrality

SMASH CISPA...AN UPDATE & CALL TO ACTION 27APR13

UPDATE! VIDEO FROM THE YOUNG TURKS, CISPA defeated in the US Senate!!! This issue is not dead, it keeps showing up in legislation, so it is important to click the link below and tell your Senators to continue to oppose CISPA...

http://youtu.be/ke-tk1q08uo

THE US House passed CISPA this week, but there are multiple groups fighting this legislation in the US Senate and Pres Obama has pledged to veto any legislation including CISPA that comes to his desk. From the ACLU followed by links to e mail your Senators to tell them to vote no on legislation including CISPA

Thanks to tens of thousands of ACLU supporters and donors like you, last week we published a full-page ad in Politico opposing CISPA, modeled after classic horror movie posters of the 1950s. 

It sent an unmistakable signal to Capitol Hill that CISPA is a dangerous threat to our freedom we refuse to tolerate. And President Obama swiftly agreed, issuing a veto threat against CISPA the very next day, just like we called for in our massive petition—an incredible victory! 

But the US House of Reps went rogue, passing the bill anyway—with virtually none of the amendments proposed to protect our privacy. It looks like the bill may be dead in the Senate, but some key senators are talking about measures that are even worse than CISPA. 

In response, we’re mailing posters of the CISPA ad to powerful players on the Senate Intelligence Committee in D.C. so they understand that CISPA, or anything like it, is unacceptable. And we need to keep spreading the word about the threat to our online privacy to the public, too
FROM Demand Progress...

Here we go again.

Last week, a majority of representatives in the House voted in favor of CISPA, and therefore in favor of allowing companies to share your personal data with other firms, the US government, and the NSA--all without a warrant and with legal impunity.

But now the fight moves to the Senate, where we have some of our staunchest allies and where we won this fight last year.

Click here to urge your Senators to oppose any cyber security legislation that doesn't protect our right to privacy. 

The Obama administration once again heard our voices and threatened to veto CISPA if the legislation did not more "carefully safeguard privacy and civil liberties."

But the fight is far from over. CISPA's corporate backers--IBM, Intel, Verizon, and AT&T--are spending millions lobbying in support of the bill precisely because it empowers them to share your private data with government agencies and the military while safeguarding themselves from legal action.

The big corporations are going to keep pushing for CISPA at the expense of their users' privacy and liberties. Tell your Senators to oppose anti-privacy cyber-security legislation now. 

Indeed, IBM's VP of government affairs admitted last week that his company intended to use CISPA to "work directly and share information directly" with the National Security Agency.

Now, as before, we cannot sacrifice our hard-won liberties and privacy rights in the pursuit of a misguided and overbroad conception of "cyber-security."

Click here to tell your Senators to oppose CISPA and any other "cyber-security" legislation that doesn't safeguard our privacy rights.

Please urge your friends to take action by forwarding this email or using these links:

	If you're already on Facebook, click here to share with your friends.
	If you're already on Twitter, click here to tweet about the campaign: Tweet

Thanks,

Demand Progress

THE CORPORATE EXODUS FROM ALEC CONTINUES 28JUL12

THE push to get companies to leave alec continues and the total now stands at 31 with Walgreen's & GM ending their association with the organization. This from Think Progress.....
General Motors And Walgreens’ Leave ALEC | Call it an exodus. Two more companies, General Motors and Walgreens’, are the latest to withdraw from the conservative legislation-crafting American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), bringing the total up to 31 organizations that have left the group in just four months. In April, progressive advocates urged companies to leave ALEC because of its ties to voter suppression efforts around the country. Progressive organizing group ColorOfChange.org continues to lobby other ALEC stakeholders to leave the group.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/26/591611/general-motors-and-walgreens-leave-alec/?mobile=nc
10JUL12
Five More Groups Drop ALEC, Bringing Count To 29 | HP, CVS, BestBuy, Deere, and MillerCoors are the latest companies to join the mass exodus from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The Republican legislation-crafting group has been losing its members ever since scandals blew up over their voter suppression efforts and their push behind the Stand Your Ground Law that originally protected George Zimmerman in the killing of Trayvon Martin. These five new companies make a total of twenty nine groups to leave ALEC in recent months, as progressive advocacy organizations have urged companies to reconsider their memberships.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/10/514097/29-groups-drop-alec/
21JUN12
BREAKING: Dell Becomes 24th Group To Drop ALEC | Computer technology giant Dell has decided to drop its membership in the American Legislative Exchange Council, a right-wing corporate front group behind the spread of voter suppression laws and Stand You Ground legislation. According to a letter from Dell’s Principal Social Strategist obtained by ThinkProgress, the company has decided not to renew its membership. Dell is the 20th company and 24th group to end its relationship with ALEC, but some large corporations remain in the fold, including State Farm and AT&T.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/21/503766/dell-drops-alec/

Megalobbying, TELL CORPORATE AMERICA TO DUMP ALEC! 13APR12 & Virginia House speaker William Howell said conservative group ALEC is ‘under attack’ by liberals 12APR12

FROM SumOfUS, the continuing campaign to force corporate America to end their membership in alec. The companies that are continuing their membership in alec need to be told they are not going to be able to fund voter suppression laws, anti-labor laws and other right-wing programs with our money, the money we spend on their products and services. Click the link to send a message to johnson & johnson, at&t, state farm and other companies demanding they cut their ties with alec now! AND for residents of Virginia check out the Washington Post article about VA House Speaker william howell and alec's influence in Richmond.....

Tell J&J, State Farm, AT&T, and other corporate ALEC sponsors: Stop using our money to fund right-wing legislation.

Every time you buy a Band-Aid, you're helping fund the "Stand Your Ground" law that Trayvon Martin's killer was hiding behind -- and thousands of other bad laws written by the American Legislative Exchange Council.
ALEC's mission is simple: to help corporations write bad laws -- laws that help their own profits to the cost of the 99% -- and get state legislatures to pass them verbatim. And to make matters worse: They're doing it with our money -- because along with funding from the usual suspects like Koch Industries and Exxon, ALEC's members include companies like Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, and State Farm.
But this week ALEC is reeling -- because in the wake of Trayvon Martin's shooting and revelations that ALEC wrote the Stand Your Ground law that was protecting Trayvon's killer, corporate sponsors have been falling like dominoes. Megacorporations Coke, Pepsi, McDonald's, Kraft and more have all quit in the last two weeks -- putting a huge dent in ALEC's budget.
Tell Johnson & Johnson and the rest of ALEC’s remaining funders to quit now.
Has your state adopted a “Stand Your Ground” law as well? Thank ALEC. Pushed for laws making it harder for minorities and the poor to vote? That’s ALEC too. Attacked unions? Undermined federal health care reform? Weakened environmental regulation? Passed tax breaks for corporations? Privatized government services? These laws were all written by the very corporations or special-interest groups that they benefited -- through ALEC.
But consumers are fighting back! One by one, our partners at Color of Change, CREDO Action, and more have been peeling off corporate support for ALEC. Practically every day in the last two weeks a new company has quit -- yesterday it was Mars. And the state legislators who ALEC uses to introduce legislation are coming under increasing pressure to stop associating with ALEC as well.
Now let’s take the fight to Johnson & Johnson -- which makes everything from Band-Aids to baby shampoo -- AT&T, State Farm and the rest of ALEC’s donors. Our friends at Color of Change will deliver your petition straight to the key companies.
Tell ALEC's corporate sponsors to stop using our money to fund laws like "Stand Your Ground."
Thanks for all that you do,
Claiborne, Kelsey, Kaytee and the rest of us

-----------------------------
More information:
"Corporate interests fuel group’s desire to shape Va. legislation, critics say", Washington Post, 21 Dec 2011
"EXPOSED: The Corporations Funding The Annual Meeting Of The Powerful Right-Wing Front Group ALEC", ThinkProgress, 5 Aug 2011

SumOfUs is a world-wide movement of people like you, working together to hold corporations accountable for their actions and forge a new, sustainable path for our global economy. You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

Was this email forwarded to you? Click here to add yourself to SumOfUs.

Virginia House speaker William Howell said conservative group ALEC is ‘under attack’ by liberals

By Anita Kumar, Published: April 12

RICHMOND — Virginia House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford) on Thursday strongly defended a national conservative organization he used to lead, arguing that it has become a victim of intimidation and extortion.
Howell said the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group that has lost some of its corporate members in the past week, has been subjected to a six-month attack by liberal groups, including the Occupy movement, Moveon.org and billionaire George Soros.
In a testy exchange after a tense news conference, Howell blamed the advocacy group ProgressVA for issuing what he called an inaccurate report in January outlining ALEC’s legislative influence in Virginia. He also criticized The Washington Post for writing about the review. ALEC has ghostwritten legislation across the nation, including in Virginia.
Howell grew frustrated after a line of questioning from Anna Scholl, the executive director of ProgressVA, and after she asked him for clarification, Howell replied: “I guess I’m not speaking in little enough words for you to understand.’’
Scholl retorted: “I’m a smart girl, actually. I went to the University of Virginia. I benefited from public education in Virginia. I think words with multiple syllables will be just fine for me.”
Virginia Democrats immediately released a video of the exchange, taped by a staffer, and called on Howell to apologize for his “belligerent and mean-spirited attack.” Howell’s office did not respond to requests for comment.
“After four months of outrageous Republican attacks on women’s rights, I guess I should not be surprised by Speaker Howell’s statement,” said Susan Platt, co-founder of the Farm Team, which supports female candidates for office in Virginia. “It is distressing, to say the least, that Howell has so wholeheartedly embraced this national trend of rhetoric against women. It is becoming pervasive.” 
 During the news conference on Thursday, Howell also chastised reporters for their coverage of the two-year, $85 billion state budget as well as former governor Timothy M. Kaine (D) for making unilateral decisions regarding a Metrorail project to Dulles International Airport. (Kaine negotiated an agreement on the project at the urging of several Republicans, including then-Sens. John Warner and George Allen and Rep. Frank Wolf.)
Howell, ALEC’s national chairman in 2009, appeared at a Capitol Square news conference with business leaders to tout a survey by ALEC that showed Virginia has been named one of the best states in which to do business.
ALEC touts itself as a pro-business, free-market organization, and its members include legislators and private companies. Corporate members pay fees, which give them a say on legislative issues. In recent weeks, several corporations have dropped their support of ALEC following scrutiny of “Stand Your Ground” laws after the death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Florida. The group had lobbied for similar laws in other states.
Howell said the group had nothing to do with the Florida case and the legislation there came before ALEC’s involvement. He predicted that ALEC, which had 65 new corporate members last year, will easily survive the latest defections.
Howell said the tactics used to pressure companies who are ALEC members included calls for boycotts that go back to the days of the Rainbow Coalition, Rev. Jesse Jackson’s political organization. “They have been very, very open . . . that they want to destroy ALEC,’’ he said. “It’s discouraging, disappointing to see this intimidation, this extortion that’s going on against ALEC right now.’’
Howell said the attacks are the result of ALEC’s success in promoting the free market as opposed to a “government-controlled economy.”
“It’s a great exchange of ideas,’’ he said.
At least 115 current or former members of the Virginia General Assembly have ties to ALEC, either by sponsoring bills, attending conferences or paying membership dues, according to the ProgressVA study. The state has spent $232,000 during the past decade to send legislators, primarily members of the Republican-controlled House of Delegates, to ALEC conferences and meetings.
Howell said ProgressVa’s study was inaccurate because it excluded other organizations, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, a group some Republicans accuse of leaning left. NCSL differs from ALEC in that only legislators and staffers are able to be members, and NCSL rarely writes model legislation.
Scholl introduced herself to Howell after the news conference and asked about the inaccuracies he had raised. After the exchange with Howell, Scholl declined to comment, except to say she would still like that information.
ProgressVA used data from a national report to identify more than 60 Virginia bills that ALEC helped author. Those bills included a piece of legislation calling for companies that hire illegal immigrants to be shut down, and another that would give businesses tax credits to fund private school tuition for needy students. Virtually all of the bills were introduced by Republicans.
The list of Virginia bills also includes one championed by Howell for several years that would have helped protect a Fortune 500 company, Philadelphia-based Crown Cork & Seal, from asbestos lawsuits. It was one of the few bills Howell publicly supported, and it died in a tight vote.
Seven bills that ALEC helped author passed in the General Assembly, including measures on education, taxes and health care, according to the study by ProgressVA. One of the resulting laws laid the groundwork for Virginia’s legal challenge of the federal health-care law passed in 2010.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/virginia-house-speaker-william-howell-said-conservative-group-alec-is-under-attack-by-liberals/2012/04/12/gIQAD5hrDT_print.html

YOUR PHONE BILL IS GOING UP! Stop the FCC's Latest Rip-Off 26OKT11

EVERYONE should participate and send a message to the FCC demanding strong oversight of all public monies the phone companies receive to make sure this doesn't become another rate raising scam from verizon, at&t and the other big telecommunications companies. Click the link to send your message to the FCC.

Stop the FCC's Latest Rip-Off.

Do you want to hand over even more of your hard-earned money to your phone company?
The FCC has a plan for that: This week the agency is weighing a new rule that would give phone companies yet another way to reach into your pocket to pad their profits. Click here to learn more and tell the FCC to pass rules that protect consumers, not AT&T and Verizon.¹
Here’s the deal: The FCC has proposed a so-called “reform” of the Universal Service Fund (USF), a program that has helped secure telephone access for millions of Americans, and which is funded via a small fee in our monthly phone bills. (Look for a line item labeled something like “universal service charge” or “federal government surcharge” and you’ll find the fee.)
The program’s goals are noble but outdated. So the FCC is looking to funnel these funds toward broadband infrastructure rather than phone lines. There’s just one problem. The FCC has proposed rules that could allow phone companies like AT&T and Verizon to extract billions more from consumers with no accountability.
If we don’t get the FCC to change its plan, carriers would have free rein to add up to $4.50 more to your monthly bill. In an era of $100 “triple-pay” packages, do AT&T and Verizon need more of our money?
Meanwhile, those Americans who can least afford higher bills and who are less likely to have broadband — the poor and the elderly — are the ones who would bear the greatest burden of this rate increase.
The FCC is voting on its proposed rules this week. But it’s not too late for it to change its path. Click here to tell the FCC that we must hold AT&T and Verizon accountable for any public money they receive.
Right now, people around the country are rising up against corporate wrongdoing. This is no time to allow another transfer of our cash to the wealthiest corporations.
Thanks,
Josh Levy
Associate Campaign Director
Free Press
Want updates on key Internet issues, like Net Neutrality and broadband access? Follow our Save the Internet campaign on Facebook.
1. Craig Aaron, 'Is the FCC Reaching Into Your Pocket to Pad Industry Profits?' Huffington Post, Oct. 6, 2011: http://act2.freepress.net/go/6552?akid=2963.9767049.fuh8mS&t=8

Tell Pres. Obama: Don't sell us out on net neutrality 2DEZ10

URGENT CALL TO ACTION TO PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY, CLICK ON THE HEADER OR THE LINKS TO PARTICIPATE......SHARE WITH ALL...

This is one campaign promise Obama can keep. Clicking here will add your name to this petition: President Obama, On the campaign trail you promised to be an advocate for net neutrality. But now the head of the FCC, whom you appointed, is caving to industry pressure and proposing weak and unenforceable net neutrality regulations. Disappointingly, your White House praised this move. So I am calling upon you directly to intercede and make sure Chairman Genachowski adequately protects American consumers. How you act now will tell us which side you are on — ours or the side of the giant telecommunications corporations."

This is a do or die moment for a free and open Internet, and President Obama needs to decide which side he is on — ours or the side of the giant telecommunications corporations.

On Wednesday, Obama appointee and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski announced plans to issue weak, industry-friendly regulations when the FCC meets on Dec. 21st. And in a cynical ploy Genachowski is calling the regulations "net neutrality," when they're nothing of the sort.

President Obama, who promised on the campaign trail to be an advocate for net neutrality, can stand up now and call for stronger rules to protect American consumers, or he can sell us out to the narrow interests of the telecoms.

While the White House initially praised Genachowski's cynical ploy, there is still time to get President Obama to change course and do the right thing.

Tell President Obama: Don't sell us out on net neutrality. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

There is no question — this is one campaign promise President Obama is fully capable of delivering on.

He doesn't have to worry about overcoming a Republican filibuster in the Senate or navigating the inevitable backstabbing and backbiting by the Blue Dogs.

Yet what Genachowski is proposing fails the smell test. For example, it effectively fails to ensure net neutrality when the Internet is accessed wirelessly. And the regulations Genachowski is proposing rest upon the FCC's Title I authority, which the courts have already ruled do not give the FCC authority to enforce net neutrality regulations. So the proposed rules are not only weak, they're ultimately unenforceable.

Let's remember that we're only talking about Title I authority because of a Bush-era decision to deregulate broadband. The FCC has all the authority it needs to reclassify broadband under Title II to give itself the legal footing to enact strong net neutrality regulations. And a majority of commissioners have gone on the record in support of net neutrality.

There is only one Internet, and consumers should be allowed to access any legal website, service or application on any device of their choosing (whether they're accessing the Internet wirelessly or not). Furthermore, broadband providers cannot be allowed to employ paid prioritization schemes to give favored network access to some websites or services over others. And finally, an FCC standing up for us would issue rules resting on a strong legal foundation (i.e. the FCC's Title II authority) with the terms defined in a way that avoids the huge loopholes favored by industry.

President Obama can make sure the FCC takes action to protect American consumers and ensure we don't lose the free and open Internet.

But if he allows his FCC Chairman to cave to the narrow corporate interests of the telecommunications giants, Obama will be doing so out of choice and not necessity.

Tell President Obama: Don't sell us out on net neutrality. Click here to automatically sign the petition.

Thank you for working for a better world.

Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

FCC Prepares For Net Neutrality Vote 1DEZ10

THE fight for Net Neutrality is almost over and comes down to this proposal from the Chairman of the FCC, more details to be made available later today....
WASHINGTON — Federal regulators are moving ahead with a plan to prohibit phone and cable companies from blocking or discriminating against Internet traffic flowing over their broadband networks.
Julius Genachowski, chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, will outline his proposal for so-called "network neutrality" rules in a speech on Wednesday. Despite Republican opposition in Congress, Genachowski plans to bring his proposal to a vote by the full commission before the end of the year.
Net neutrality rules were one of the Obama administration's top campaign pledges to the technology industry and have been among Genachowski's priorities since he took over the FCC more than a year ago.
Many big Internet companies, such as search leader Google Inc. and calling service Skype, as well as public-interest groups, insist regulations are needed to ensure broadband companies don't use their control over Internet connections to dictate where consumers can go and what they can do online.
But Genachowski has run into substantial opposition from big phone and cable companies, including AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., which argue that they should be allowed to manage their networks as they see fit. Genachowski has spent the past several months trying to craft a compromise.
His new proposal would "culminate recent efforts to find common ground" and create "rules of the road to preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet," according to an advance copy of his remarks.
The plan – which builds on a set of FCC principles first established under the previous administration in 2005 – would require that broadband providers let subscribers access all legal online content, applications and services over their wireline networks.
But it would give broadband providers flexibility to manage their systems to deal with problems such as network congestion and unwanted traffic like spam as long as they publicly disclose their network management practices.
The proposal would also prohibit wireless carriers from blocking access to any Web sites or competing applications such as Internet calling services on mobile devices, and would require them to disclose their network management practices.

Story continues below

But it would give wireless carriers more leeway to manage data traffic since wireless systems have more bandwidth constraints than wired networks. That provision is likely to draw fire from public-interest groups, which argue that wireless networks should have the same protections as wired systems, particularly as more and more Americans go online using mobile devices.
In addition, the proposal would allow broadband providers to experiment with routing traffic from specialized services such as smart grids and home security systems over dedicated networks as long as these services do not hurt the public Internet.
In one key victory for the phone and cable companies, Genachowski's proposal would leave in place the FCC's current regulatory framework for broadband, which treats broadband as a lightly regulated "information service."
The agency has been trying to come up with a new framework since a federal appeals court in April ruled that the FCC had overstepped its existing authority in sanctioning cable giant Comcast for discriminating against Internet file-sharing traffic on its network – violating the very net neutrality principles that Genachowski now hopes to adopt as formal rules.
In order to ensure that the commission would be on solid legal ground in adopting net neutrality rules and other broadband regulations following that decision, Genachowski had proposed redefining broadband as a telecommunications service subject to "common carrier" obligations to treat all traffic equally. But that effort quickly triggered a fierce backlash from the phone and cable companies, as well as many Republicans on Capitol Hill – prompting Genachowski to abandon it in his current plan.
Genachowski's new plan is based in large part on a proposal that Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the outgoing chairman of the House Commerce Committee, tried unsuccessfully to push in Congress several months ago. Waxman, too, ran into opposition from Republicans who warn that net neutrality rules amount to burdensome regulation that would discourage broadband providers from investing in their networks.
With Republicans set to take over the House next year, Genachowski is running out of time to get his net neutrality proposal through the FCC without being blocked by lawmakers.
Supporters argue that net neutrality rules are critical to preserving an open Internet and ensuring that phone and cable companies cannot slow or block online phone calls, Web video and other Internet services that compete with their core businesses.
Indeed, the online file-sharing service blocked by Comcast was used in large part to trade movies and other video over the Internet. Net neutrality proponents also want rules to ensure that broadband companies cannot favor their own online traffic or the traffic of business partners that can pay for priority access.
But the phone and cable companies insist they need flexibility to manage network traffic so that high-bandwidth applications – such as online video – don't hog capacity and slow down their systems. They say this is particularly true for wireless networks. The communications companies also argue that after spending billions to upgrade their lines for broadband, they need to be able earn a healthy return by offering premium services.

Is Google a Little Bit Evil? 6AUG10 from MOJO

A great article from Mother Jones, see my post The End Of The Internet As You Know It 6AUG10 to participate in the Free Press / Open Left campaign to save Net Neutrality.

— By Kevin Drum

| Fri Aug. 6, 2010 2:00 AM PDT

— digital_stability/Flickr

"Net neutrality" is a principle that's guided internet development for decades. Put simply, it means that everyone has equal access to the net. If you send an email to Aunt Martha, it has the same priority as my Google search for Lady Gaga videos or Rupert Murdoch's latest multibillion dollar internet television startup. Data is data, and it all goes over the net equally quickly.
But net neutrality has been under attack from years. The battle lines shift, and sometimes get a little too complex to follow in detail, but the outline is pretty simple. Companies in the content business generally support net neutrality. They want their data delivered as fast as anyone else's without having to pay any special fees. Conversely, companies like Verizon or AT&T, who supply the pipes, want it to go away. They love the idea of being able to charge higher fees for better service.
During the Bush era, the FCC began to back off on net neutrality but still issued a set of "principles" that it expected service providers to adhere to. Then, last April, a court ruled that the FCC had no authority to regulate net neutrality at all. A month later, FCC chairman Julius Genachowski announced that he would try to reclassify internet providers in order to re-impose net neutrality rules on them, but this is a regulatory process that will take, at a minimum, months to complete.
In the meantime, net neutrality may be on the verge of unraveling completely. Google, once a fierce advocate of net neutrality and a company whose informal motto is "Don't be evil," has apparently decided that maybe just a little bit of evil is OK after all:

Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content’s creators are willing to pay for the privilege.
....Such an agreement could overthrow a once-sacred tenet of Internet policy known as net neutrality, in which no form of content is favored over another. In its place, consumers could soon see a new, tiered system, which, like cable television, imposes higher costs for premium levels of service.
Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April.

The problem here is obvious: once Google does this, they set off an arms race. Can Yahoo or Microsoft really afford to be second class citizens? Or Disney or Fox? Not likely. Before long, pretty much every deep-pocketed content provider has signed a deal for special treatment and we officially have a two-tier internet. On one tier are the companies with money. On the other tier are all the rest of us. And make no mistake: if the major content providers get guarantees of better service, every other content provider will almost certainly end up with worse service than they have now.
I have a vested interest in this, of course, since Mother Jones isn't big enough or deep-pocketed enough to pay for top tier service, and that means that in two or three years delivery of this blog could end up pretty molasses-like. In a less parochial vein, I think the lesson of history is pretty clear: when common carriers are allowed to discriminate, the result is disastrous for everyone except the folks who currently dominate their market. If you have a startup search company that outperforms Google, but only if it's as fast as Google, well, what are the odds that Google won't pay to make sure that its service is always faster than yours? After all, ad revenue depends on getting eyeballs by hook or by crook, and it turns out they aren't quite as committed to not being evil as we once thought.
I'm not a net neutrality purist. I can see the case for offering tiered service for things like on-demand video streaming, which simply can't work commercially unless providers can guarantee reliable delivery. Beyond that, though, a free and open internet has worked pretty well and we abandon it at our peril. Time is running out on the FCC, and in any case, the FCC was never the right place for this anyway. Congress is. If we want to keep net neutrality in anything like its current form, Congress needs to get off its duff and set the rules of the road once and for all. Markey-Eshoo is a pretty good place to start.

THE END OF THE INTERNET AS YOU KNOW IT....HELP SAVE NET NEUTRALITY!

IT IS CRUCIAL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE JOIN THIS STRUGGLE (1.7 MILLION HAVE JOINED SO FAR) TO PROTECT NET NEUTRALITY. BELOW IS THE E MAIL FROM FREE PRESS AND OPEN LEFT OF THE LATEST PHASE OF THIS BATTLE. EVEN IF YOU HAVE TAKEN ACTION BEFORE THE FCC AND YOUR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN. WATCH THE VIDEO AND TO JOIN IN THE ACTION CLICK THE HEADER OF THIS POST.

   The fight for Net Neutrality has reached a crucial moment. The
    FCC Chairman just called for new Net Neutrality rules, and he is being
    supported by President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and numerous
    congressional leaders. Now we need a powerful, public show of support.
    More than 1.7 million people have already called for Congress and the
    FCC to support Net Neutrality. If we can reach 2 million, we'll send a message that Washington won't be able to ignore. Please join
    the campaign to save the Internet now:
    https://secure.freepress.net/site/Advocacy?id=356

Net neutrality is about to go under, and your urgent help is needed to save it.


The New York Times is reporting that Verizon and Google have cut a deal to be announced next week that "could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. The charges could be paid by companies, like YouTube, owned by Google, for example, to Verizon, one of the nation's leading Internet service providers, to ensure that its content received priority as it made its way to consumers. The agreement could eventually lead to higher charges for Internet users."

That would mean the end of the Internet as we currently know it.

For months, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski has had the ability to enact strong net neutrality protections. But he sat on his hands. Meanwhile, President Obama, who as Candidate Obama promised to "take a back seat to no one" on net neutrality, has remained silent.

It's time to join the fight by signing up with Free Press, the organization leading this fight, to tell the FCC and your member of Congress to enact strong net neutrality protections.

This deal between Verizon and Google would make the Internet the way corporations want it. It would allow the wealthiest, most powerful corporations to have the best channels of production and distribution, while everyone else gets crumbs or worse. It could even mean the end of blogs like OpenLeft, as it becomes nearly impossible for you to load the blog the way you do now.


Solidarity,
The Open Left Team

The Fate of the Internet -- Decided in a Back Room 22JUN10

The Wall Street Journal just reported that the Federal Communications Commission is holding "closed-door meetings" with industry to broker a deal on Net Neutrality -- the rule that lets users determine their own Internet experience.
Given that the corporations at the table all profit from gaining control over information, the outcome won't be pretty.
The meetings include a small group of industry lobbyists representing the likes of AT&T, Verizon, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and Google. They reportedly met for two-and-a-half hours on Monday morning and will convene another meeting today. The goal according to insiders is to "reach consensus" on rules of the road for the Internet.
This is what a failed democracy looks like: After years of avid public support for Net Neutrality - involving millions of people from across the political spectrum - the federal regulator quietly huddles with industry lobbyists to eliminate basic protections and serve Wall Street's bottom line.

Obama pledges to appoint Net Neutrality supporters to the FCC

We've seen government cater to big business in the same ways, prior to the BP oil disaster and the subprime mortgage meltdown.
The Industry's regulatory capture of the Internet is now almost complete. The one agency tasked with oversight of communications now thinks it can wriggle free of its obligation to protect the open Internet, if only it can get industry to agree on a solution.
Congress is holding its own series of "closed-door" meetings and, while they've been ambiguous on the details, many remain skeptical on whether the process will lead to an outcome that serves the public interest. After all, this is the same Congress that is bankrolled by the phone and cable lobby in excess of $100 million.
Why is this so startling even for the more cynical among us? The Obama administration promised to embrace a new era of government transparency. It's the tool we were supposed to use to pry open policymaking and expose it to the light of public scrutiny.
In that spirit, President Obama pledged to "take a backseat to no one" in his support for Net Neutrality. He appointed Julius Genachowski to head the FCC -- the man who crafted his pro-Net Neutrality platform in 2008.
But the mere existence of these private meetings reveals to us a chairman who has fallen far short of expectations. Instead Genachowski is shying from the need to fortify the Internet's open architecture in favor of deals made between DC power brokers.
These deals will determine who ultimately controls Internet content and innovation. Will phone and cable companies succeed in their decade-long push to take ownership of both the infrastructure of the Internet and the information that flows across its pipes? Will they cut in a few giant companies like Google and the recording industry to get their way?
Whatever the outcome, the public - including the tens of millions of Americans who use the Internet every day and in every way - are not being given a seat at the table.
Genachowski's closed-door sessions come after six months of public comments on whether the agency should proceed with a rule to protect Net Neutrality.
During that period, more than 85 percent of comments received by the agency called for a strong Net Neutrality rule. Look at it this way: If a candidate received more than 85 percent of the vote, wouldn't she have a mandate to decide on the public's behalf?
In Chairman Genachowski's alternative view of reality, though, the public is immaterial, and industry consensus supreme.

Offshore Corporate Tax Havens: Why Are They Still Allowed? 1JUN10

The American people have a choice. One can choose to bitch about this situation and do nothing, or choose to contact their Senators and Representative in D.C. and demand something be done. Democracy is not a spectator sport....DO SOMETHING!

The bracing reality that America has two sets of rules -- one for the corporate class and another for the middle class -- has never been more indisputable.
The middle class, by and large, plays by the rules, then watches as its jobs disappear -- and the Senate takes a break instead of extending unemployment benefits. The corporate class games the system -- making sure its license to break the rules is built into the rules themselves.
One of the most glaring examples of this continues to be the ability of corporations to cheat the public out of tens of billions of dollars a year by using offshore tax havens. Indeed, it's estimated that companies and wealthy individuals funneling money through offshore tax havens are evading around $100 billion a year in taxes -- leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab. And with cash-strapped states all across the country cutting vital services to the bone, it's not like we don't need the money.
You want Exhibit A of two sets of rules? According to the White House, in 2004, the last year data on this was compiled, U.S. multinational corporations paid roughly $16 billion in taxes on $700 billion in foreign active earnings -- putting their tax rate at around 2.3 percent. Know many middle class Americans getting off that easy at tax time?
In December 2008, the Government Accounting Office reported that 83 of the 100 largest publicly-traded companies in the country -- including AT&T, Chevron, IBM, American Express, GE, Boeing, Dow, and AIG -- had subsidiaries in tax havens -- or, as the corporate class comically calls them, "financial privacy jurisdictions."
Even more egregiously, of those 83 companies, 74 received government contracts in 2007. GM, for instance, got more than $517 million from the government -- i.e. the taxpayers -- that year, while shielding profits in tax-friendly places like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. And Boeing, which received over $23 billion in federal contracts that year, had 38 subsidiaries in tax havens, including six in Bermuda.
And while it's as easy as opening up an island P.O. Box, not every big company uses the dodge. For instance, Boeing's competitor Lockheed Martin had no offshore subsidiaries. But far too many do -- another GAO study found that over 18,000 companies are registered at a single address in the Cayman Islands, a country with no corporate or capital gains taxes.
America's big banks -- including those that pocketed billions from the taxpayers in bailout dollars -- seem particularly fond of the Cayman Islands. At the time of the GAO report, Morgan Stanley had 273 subsidiaries in tax havens, 158 of them in the Cayman Islands. Citigroup had 427, with 90 in the Caymans. Bank of America had 115, with 59 in the Caymans. Goldman Sachs had 29 offshore havens, including 15 in the Caymans. JPMorgan had 50, with seven in the Caymans. And Wells Fargo had 18, with nine in the Caymans.
Perhaps no company exemplifies the corporate class/middle class double standard more than KBR/Halliburton. The company got billions from U.S. taxpayers, then turned around and used a Cayman Island tax dodge to pump up its bottom line. As the Boston Globe's Farah Stockman reported, KBR, until 2007 a unit of Halliburton, "has avoided paying hundreds of millions of dollars in federal Medicare and Social Security taxes by hiring workers through shell companies based in this tropical tax haven."
In 2008, the company listed 10,500 Americans as being officially employed by two companies that, as Stockman wrote, "exist in a computer file on the fourth floor of a building on a palm-studded boulevard here in the Caribbean." Aside from the tax advantages, Stockman points out another benefit of this dodge: Americans who officially work for a company whose headquarters is a computer file in the Caymans are not eligible for unemployment insurance or other benefits when they get laid off -- something many of them found out the hard way.
This kind of sun-kissed thievery is nothing new. Indeed, back in 2002, to call attention to the outrage of the sleazy accounting trick, I wrote a column announcing I was thinking of moving my syndicated newspaper column to Bermuda:

I'll still live in America, earn my living here, and enjoy the protection, technology, infrastructure, and all the other myriad benefits of the land of the free and the home of the brave. I'm just changing my business address. Because if I do that, I won't have to pay for those benefits -- I'll get them for free!

Washington has been trying to address the issue for close to 50 years -- JFK gave it a go in 1961. But time and again Corporate America's game fixers -- aka lobbyists -- and water carriers in Congress have managed to keep the loopholes open.
The battle is once again afoot. On Friday, the House passed the American Jobs and Closing Tax Loopholes Act. The bill, in addition to extending unemployment benefits, clamps down on some of they ways corporations hide their income offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Even though practically every House Republican voted against it, the bill passed 215 to 204.
The bill's passage in the Senate, however, remains in doubt, with lobbyists gearing up for a furious fight to make sure America's corporate class can continue to profitably enjoy the largess of government services and contracts without the responsibility of paying its fair share.
The bill is far from perfect -- it leaves open a number of loopholes and would only recoup a very small fraction of the $100 billion corporations and wealthy individuals are siphoning off from the U.S. Treasury. And it wouldn't ban companies using offshore tax havens from receiving government contracts, which is stunning given the hard times we are in and the populist groundswell at the way average Americans are getting the short end of the stick.
But the bill would end one of the more egregious examples of the double standard between the corporate class and the middle class, finally forcing hedge fund managers to pay taxes at the same rate as everybody else. As the law stands now, their income is considered "carried interest," and is accordingly taxed at the capital gains rate of 15 percent.
The issue was famously brought up in 2007 by Warren Buffett when he noted that his receptionist paid 30 percent of her income in taxes, while he paid only 17.7 percent on his taxable income of $46 million dollars.
As Robert Reich points out, the 25 most successful hedge fund managers earned $1 billion each. The top earner clocked in at $4 billion. And all of them paid taxes at about half the rate of Buffett's receptionist.
Closing this outrageous loophole would bring in close to $20 billion dollars in revenue -- money desperately needed at a time when teachers and nurses and firemen are being laid off all around the country.
Hedge fund lobbyists are currently hacking away at the Senate's resolve with, not surprisingly, some success. And it's not just Republicans who are willing to do their bidding, but a number of Democrats as well. Indeed, it was a Democrat -- Chuck Schumer -- who led the fight against closing the loophole in 2007.
"I don't know how members of Congress can return home and look an office manager, a nurse, a court clerk in the eye and say 'I chose hedge fund managers instead of you and your family'," said Lori Lodes of the SEIU.
Nicole Tichon, of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, framed the debate in similar terms:

It's hard to imagine anyone campaigning on protecting hedge fund managers, Wall Street banks and companies that ship jobs and profits overseas. It's hard to imagine telling constituents that somehow they should continue to subsidize these industries. We're anxious to see whose side the Senate is on and what story they want to tell the American people.

Up until now, the story has been a familiar narrative of Two Americas, with one set of rules for those who can afford to hire a fleet of K Street lobbyists and a different set for everybody else. It's time to give this infuriating tale a different -- and far more just and satisfying -- ending.