Sunday, December 19, 2010

FCC Votes on Net Neutrality Tuesday Dec. 21

Okay, here we are at the 11th hour - again.  Net neutrality rules will be voted on by a 5-member board of commissioners of the FCC on Tuesday. Five people will decide the fate of everyone on the internet.

NOTE: contact links to FCC toll free numbers and links to articles can be found at the end of this post. They will be streaming the meeting and the vote live on Tuesday. (Dec. 21 - just 1 1/2 days away)

Chairman Genachowski did try, to his credit, to reclassify broadband/wireless to level 2 (which would give it the same regulations as wired telecom service). If wireless stays at level 1 classification, the FCC will have a much harder time regulating telecoms if they try to pull things such as what Comcast tried to pull with Netflix. Big telecom industries know this, and have pressured Chairman Genachowski to back down and put together some toothless pablum rules and keep them at level 1 classification. (BTW- Comcast is attempting a merger with ABC, one of the largest mainstream media sources. It's chilling to think of the implications of that, and what precedent it would set. Comcast and other telecom companies are already interfering and blocking what we would read and download.)

The internet as it stands right now seems to be working. But how long before telecom industries punch enough holes in the dike to flood in and take over the net, which they've been trying to do for years? And what's the solution?

Telecom corporations already have too many friends and lobbyists in Washington. The way things are set up now, the FCC has little power left, thanks to the government and the courts. The FCC can now be sued by telecom corporations if it tries to make strong rules against their corporate agenda to rule the internet - both in content and monetarily. So if the FCC makes rules, they have to be strong and loophole-free so that huge telecoms and DNS servers can't weasel out of them, or worse, sue the FCC or strip it of all its power and reverse the telecommunications act - which is the only protection from mega-telecoms we have at present.


Even if people flood the FCC with calls and somehow manage to stop the present toothless ruling from passing without FIRST being strengthened, that will only buy a little time, and the fight will go on and on into the next congress, which means we have to KEEP pressuring the FCC, congress, and the President to side with the people. Why? Two reasons:

1) Either way this vote falls, the big telecom industries won't let up, and the FCC's regulatory capacity is already so weakened as to allow telecom giants to undo even the most basic protections we consumers have.
2) Given the U.S government's embarrassment and froth at having some of the details of its shameful practices exposed by Wikileaks, our government and its  telecom lobbyists are chomping at the bit to crack down on free speech, whistleblowers, "outsider" independent media, and investigative journalism on the internet. That can be done by easily by huge telecoms merging with mainstream media (thus owning them) and then blocking whatever content they don't like while at the same time hammering at our civil rights and free speech in the courts.

At this point I'd agree that no rules are better than toothless ones, just as no tax relief bill would have been better for 99% of all concerned than the flawed one we got, which will only make the top 1% of the richest people even more obscenely rich, all on the backs of the rest of us, while paving the way to gut social security and all social programs when the new congress steps in this January. But who knows? The spin on both sides is so confusing.

At least we should thank the FCC commissioners for hard work done, and tell them why kowtowing to telecom giants' agendas isn't good enough, and encourage the commissioners to keep tightening the rules and making them more specific and free of loopholes for the corporate giants. The only problem with that is the three democrats on the commission know there need to be regulations, and the two republicans want no regulations on corporations whatsoever. So partisan gridlock continues and the Corporate Money Party controls them all anyway. What to do?

By observing the housing bubble and big bank deregulation and bailout, one can only deduce that deregulating big telecom industry would have disastrous effects on the availability of independent media, bandwidth and content equality, and cost-free access, especially for lower middle class and the poor, and small ISPs and news sources.

Below are some links; decide for yourself. At the very least, I hope you people at least ask Chairman Genachowski NOT to cave in to the telecom industry's idea of net neutrality. Commissioner Michael Copps, a champion for net neutrality, is for strengthening the regulations. Mignon Clyburn has been pressing for more regulation of wireless carriers, but will probably vote for the Order reluctantly, just to have some regulation. The other two commissioners, Robert Mc Dowell and Meredith Atwell Baker, are opposed to it, as they are against all regulation of corporations.

Hutchison Again Tries to Block Net Neutrality 

source - PC magazine, 12/16/10. Republican senators filed an amendment to HR3082 - (remember that? the same house resolution hiding the food safety bill, s.510 somewhere in deep in its bowels)- to prohibit any funds from the omnibus bill to be used by the FCC to enforce or implement Net Neutrality. Can't yet decipher if that is disgusting or a good thing for net neutrality proponents. Here is what it says:

"None of the funds appropriated by this Act may be used by the Federal Communications Commission to adopt or implement, or otherwise bring or litigate any claim or otherwise intervene in, join, participate, or support any claim in any Federal or State court relating to any— (1) open Internet-based rules, protocols, or standards; or (2) rules, protocols, or standards regulating the behavior of broadband Internet access service providers with respect to discrimination of broadband traffic, network management practices, managed services, specialized services, or paid prioritization," the amendment states.
  
Can't find the name or number of that amendment at present. They slip this crap in on appropriations bills. But the language stated above is confusing and can be read too broadly. What does it actually MEAN?


Comcast-Level 3 dispute lingers as FCC net neutrality vote approaches   - This article comes at an interesting time. I hope comcast fails in its dispute and attempt to merge with ABC.

http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html 
All the emails, toll free numbers and fax numbers, etc. for the FCC commissioners. Please flood them with your calls and if you have a home fax machine, faxes. Let them know that the rules they are proposing are too weak and that it's better to wait than give telecom corporations more loopholes or reasons to sue and hog-tie the FCC. Thanks.

No comments:

Post a Comment