NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label julius genachowski. Show all posts
Showing posts with label julius genachowski. Show all posts

23 June 2011

MISSING: Your local news, thanks to covert consolidation from FREEPRESS 23JUN11

THE covert consolidation of local news broadcast in the Washington D.C. area (WTTG, WRC AND WUSA) is why I stopped watching the local news about 2 years ago, and I don't feel any less informed. They have nothing to offer but milk toast reporting and stories that belong on one of those trashy Hollywood reporting broadcast. Check this out from FreePress to see if the news broadcasters are participating in covert consolidation.
SaveTheNews.org
Change the Channels

Take Action Now: Fight Covert Consolidation
A dangerous new trend has taken hold across America, threatening local journalism and the future of news itself.
Its name? Covert consolidation.
Today, we’re launching a campaign to fight this new form of media consolidation. It's called “Change the Channels.” 
Check out our new Change the Channels site and learn how you can stop covert consolidation in your community.
Covert consolidation is what happens when broadcasters collude to cut costs and reduce competition. In many places, several TV stations are even airing the exact same story – from one viewpoint, by one reporter, from one camera angle. (Watch our video to see these deals in action).
Our new Change the Channels site uses an interactive map to make it easy to find out which stations are consolidating in your area, and what you can do about it. Go here to find out if your town is affected.
This phenomenon is now so widespread that, according to the FCC, "nearly one-third of TV stations say they are running news produced by another station."1 We found that covert consolidation is taking place in nearly 80 markets, involving more than 200 stations.
The FCC is now reconsidering its media ownership rules, so this is a perfect chance for us to shine a spotlight on this issue and force the agency to get tough with stations that have failed the communities they are licensed to serve.
Click here to sign our letter urging the FCC to put an end to covert consolidation.
Covert consolidation takes many forms, but the results are the same: Media companies pad their bottom line by sacrificing local journalism, competition and diversity. This practice must be stopped.
Together, we can build a case for better local news that the FCC won’t be able to ignore. Check out our new site and help us change the channels today.
Thank you,
Libby Reinish
Program Coordinator
Free Press
www.freepress.net
P.S. Want to support our work? We don't take a dime from businesses, political parties or the government. We are funded by people like you. Please donate today.
1. "The Information Needs of Communities" Federal Communications Commission, June 2011: http://act2.freepress.net/go/4723?akid=2600.9767049.yTJz8o&t=11

23 December 2010

FCC AND THE END OF NET NEUTRALITY 21DEZ10

NEW FCC rules on the net do not do enough to keep the internet the free flowing source of information so many of us rely on and enjoy......this from the PCCC
Progressive Change Campaign Committee

BREAKING: Minutes ago, the FCC passed new rules -- written by corporations -- that will end Net Neutrality. For the first time in history, the U.S. government approved corporate censorship of the Internet, putting the future of online free speech at risk. Unbelievably, the person leading the charge was Obama appointee Julius Genachowski.
This violates President Obama's campaign promise to protect Net Neutrality, but some media are reporting the corporate spin that this is a "Net Neutrality compromise." It's not -- there's no such thing as half a First Amendment. We need to set the record straight.
If you're on Facebook, click here to spread the word.
By sharing, you can help us spread the top 3 reasons the rules passed today are a giveaway to big corporations and break Obama's promise:
  1. They enshrine different rules for wired and wireless Internet -- allowing big corporations to censor on your mobile phone
  2. They allow corporations to set up tollbooths online, stifling new innovators like the next YouTube who can't pay the fees the old, crusty corporations can pay
  3. For the first time, they embrace a "public Internet" for regular people vs. a "private Internet" with all the new innovations for corporations who pay more -- ending the Internet as we know it
A more detailed explanation is here. Please pass this email to your friends so they know not to believe the corporate spin.
And click here to share on Twitter and here to share on Facebook.
Thanks for being a bold progressive,
Jason Rosenbaum, Adam Green, Stephanie Taylor, and the PCCC team

Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. We've received over 60,246 small-dollar donations. Can you help us hit 65,000?
Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

02 December 2010

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.
Take action!
Clicking here will add your name to this petition:
Click to sign.
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.
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.
Thank you for working for a better world.
Matt Lockshin, Campaign Manager
CREDO Action from Working Assets

01 December 2010

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.
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.

03 September 2010

CALL THE FCC:SAVE THE INTERNET from MOVEON.ORG


I CALLED, and I hope you will too, and then report your call to MoveOn.org
The Google-Verizon plan to kill the open Internet has sparked a huge grassroots backlash.
Over 350,000 petition signatures were delivered at an unprecedented rally in front of Google headquarters in Silicon Valley, and the controversy has been covered everywhere from The Wall Street Journal to Jon Stewart.1
Now, it's up to the Federal Communications Commission to save the Internet. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski says he supports net neutrality, but, under pressure from big corporate lobbyists, he hasn't done anything about it.2
The Google-Verizon deal has really increased public concern about this issue, and we now have a great chance to convince the FCC to stand up to the corporate lobbyists and save the Internet.
Can you take a moment and call the FCC? Tell them to say no to the Google-Verizon proposal and protect net neutrality. Here's where to call:
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (pronounced "jenna-cow-ski")
202-418-1000
Then, click here to report the results of your call:
If the FCC doesn't act, it will mean the end of the Internet as we know it. The Google-Verizon deal confirms that, without government action, corporations will create two separate, unequal sections of the Internet—one fast Internet for big business and an inferior, slow "public Internet" for you and me.3
The Google-Verizon proposal is just the latest example of giant corporations trying to write the very regulations that govern their behavior. BP shouldn't decide the rules for offshore drilling, Goldman Sachs shouldn't write regulations for Wall Street, and we must not let Google or Verizon decide how we can use the Internet.
The FCC has all the power it needs to make net neutrality the law of the land. The FCC simply must reverse a terrible Bush administration decision to deregulate broadband Internet service.4
Take a minute to call FCC Chairman Genachowski and tell him to stop delaying and immediately enact strong net neutrality regulations. Here's where to call:
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (pronounced "jenna-cow-ski")
202-418-1000
Then, click here to report the results of your call:
Thanks for all you do.
–Steven, Joan, Jeff, Duncan, and the rest of the team

Sources:
1. "Google Defends Its 'Net Neutrality' Plan," The Wall Street Journal, August 12, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89947&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=5
"Internet Exploiter," The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, August 17, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90063&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=6
2. "Chairman Genachowski. Can You Hear Us Now?" Save the Internet, August 19, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=90064&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=7
3. "Free Press Urges Policymakers to Reject Google-Verizon Pact," press release, August 9, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89934&id=23127-17549061-G2DFXEx&t=8
4. "Will the FCC reclassify broadband so it can do its job? So far, we don't know," Firedoglake, April 15, 2010
http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/41227
Want to support our work? We're entirely funded by our 5 million members—no corporate contributions, no big checks from CEOs. And our tiny staff ensures that small contributions go a long way. Chip in here.

09 August 2010

CAMPAIGN TO SAVE THE INTERNET, PRESERVE NET NEUTRALITY from MOVEON.ORG

GOOGLE'S motto used to be "Don't be evil" but it seems they are turning to the Dark Side and with Verizon will be the driving force to end Net Neutrality......watch the video from MoveOn.org and participate in the public campaign to save Net Neutrality! Click the header to sign the petition!

Google and Verizon just announced a horrifying proposal that could literally kill the Internet as we know it. Their plan? To create two separate, unequal sections of the Internet—one for big business that would be high-speed and exclusive, and then the inferior, slow "public Internet" that would be available to you and me.1
We created this video to demonstrate what it's all about. Just click below or go to http://vimeo.com/14013996.
Source:
1. "Google Goes 'Evil,'" The Huffington Post, August 9, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89919&id=22449-17549061-zzJjiCx&t=1
"Google-Verizon Deal: The End of The Internet as We Know It," The Huffington Post, August 9, 2010
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=89918&id=22449-17549061-zzJjiCx&t=


Google: Don't Be Evil from MoveOn.org Official Channel on Vimeo.

06 August 2010

Is Google a Little Bit Evil? 6AUG10 from MOJO

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

23 June 2010

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.