In a 52 to 46 vote held on Thursday, the Senate blocked a GOP bid to overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s controversial net neutrality regulations.

Earlier this week, the White House threatened to veto the measure should the Senate pass it, saying that repealing net neutrality regulations would jeopardize freedom on the internet.

“It would be ill-advised to threaten the very foundations of innovation in the Internet economy and the democratic spirit that has made the Internet a force for social progress around the world,” the White House said.

Republicans argue that the FCC overstepped its legal authority with the net neutrality regulations, adding that regulating the internet would stifle its growth, and even referring to the regulations as a “job-killer”.

“While we all understand the importance of an open Internet, I think we can also agree that the growth of the Internet in the last 15 years is an American success story that occurred absent any heavy-handed regulation by the federal regulators in Washington,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), as reported by The Hill.

“[W]e should think long and hard before we allow unelected bureaucrats to tinker with it now.”

Republicans aren’t the only ones going after the FCC’s net neutrality regulations. Several large telecommunications companies have voiced strong concerns over net neutrality. Verizon has even filed a suit against the FCC in an attempt to stop the bill.

[Image credit: Bloomberg]

Senate blocks GOP bid to repeal net neutrality is a post from: The Inquisitr

Imagine just for a second my American readers if Comcast sent you an email one day to let you know that while they still have caps in place you can still watch all the NBC online content and Xfinity content that you wanted because that won’t count against your caps; but things like Netflix will.

I’d be willing to bet that within minutes of that email hitting inboxes around the US the roar would start. There would be screaming to high heaven and calls to the FTC and anyone else that could make hay off of the move vote wise would be calling for investigations left right and center.

Yet here in Canada, well western Canada right now, this is exactly the move that has taken place thanks to Shaw Media announcing that they were exempting their own Movie Club content from counting against Shaw Media broadband customers data caps but services like Netflix would still count.

Now it should also be pointed out that all the major broadband providers, with the notable exception of Cogeco Cable, all own television networks, both standard and cable based networks. Rogers owns a large number of cable based television networks including OLN, OMNI, and CityTV along with being one of the countries largest wireless and cable companies, Bell Canada owns the CTVglobemedia network, Shaw Media owns the Global Television Network.

All the major broadband players in Canada have a vested interested in having data caps and traffic shaping practices, none of which benefit the consumer. Of course one would think that the Canadian governmental oversight agency; otherwise known as the CRTC, but the reality is that the CRTC is made up of hand picked commissioners who all have worked at one time or another for the very companies that they are suppose to be overseeing.

Instead nothing could be further from the truth and this is why Canadians have some of the highest cell phone rates in the world, the most onerous data caps next to maybe Australia, and now thanks to Shaw Media we are seeing a total manipulation of the Internet to benefit an individual company.

Only in Canada you say? Pity.

via electronista and GigaOM

Oh those crazy Canucks, trust it to be them to show why Net Neutrality is important is a post from: The Inquisitr

Throughout his tenure as a senator Al Franken has made media consolidation and network neutrality his signature platforms and he definitely isn’t happy with the Comcast and NBC deal, which passed through the FCC and DoJ yesterday.

During his speech, which was happening at the same time that the FCC announcement approving the deal was made, Senator Franken said among other things that the decision “will create essentially two Internets.” He also believes that we will see a direct move by the combined company to try and shut down Netflix.

When it comes to the Comcast merger, Franken was even more vocal. “As you probably know, I hate this merger,” he told the group. Not only will it raises prices on TV subscriptions, it will give the combined entity incredible power to stifle competition from online sources like Netflix.

“I’m hearing that Comcast is already preparing to pull NBC Universal’s programming from Netflix when it’s next up for review,” Franken said. The cable industry is worried about the threat from cheaper options like Netflix; “they aren’t stupid and they want to shut it down.”

via Ars Technica

Here is a video of his speech for those interested.

Senator Franken: Comcast deal bad for consumers and the Internet is a post from: The Inquisitr

If the merger of Comcast and NBC is approved by the FCC it may put in place a 7 year agreement which will ensure that the newly formed company can not throttle the internet speeds of competitors or prioritize their own services for faster internet speeds, sites that including NBC.com and Hulu among various other offerings.

Under the proposed plan the company would also be forbidden for using any type of set-top boxes or other hardware to send customers away from their competitors and towards their own content.

Under the new neutrality rules, the company’s own cap of 250GB/month would have to apply to their own content just as it does with other content.

The terms, while not released in full are expected to be announced by the FCC, Comcast or NBC in the next several days.

Comcast-NBC Merger Could Force 7 Year Net Neutrality Agreement is a post from: The Inquisitr

If you want to start a passionate discussion in tech circles just mention Net Neutrality and FCC in the same sentence. If you want to get a lot of blank stares and shuffling of feet just mention net neutrality at your next PTA meeting or neighborhood corner bar.

There is a lot being made about a recent poll by polling company Rasmussen where they found that one in five Americans want the FCC to regulate the Internet. From Huffington Post to reddit you can see the techies get all their panties in a knot and you have host of podcasts, like Buzz Out Loud, proclaiming that 2011 will be the year that the whole net neutrality issue explodes.

Let’s clear up this first misconception.

It will not explode.

The first reality about this is that it won’t explode because it is not an election year in the US.

The second reality is that it will not explode because; as many people have pointed out, both before and after this latest poll published to get big tech press, the majority of American do not know what the hell net neutrality even means; and a larger percentage of those people couldn’t give a shit about it.

Net neutrality is a nebulous term at the best of times but it becomes even more so when you have companies and governments using the concept as a political football; which is exactly what the companies involved in the business want to happen.

The only thing exploding is the general consumers heads as they here the term being thrown around because for the most part if it doesn’t interfere with their Facebooking or getting email they couldn’t care less.

The next  misconception: it will sort itself out, we don’t need to worry about it.

No, it won’t sort itself out.

At least not in a way that will benefit the consumer in the long run because of the simple reality is that access to the Internet is controlled by corporations.

One doesn’t need a degree in economics or business to know that the prime purpose of any corporation is to make as much money as possible with the least amount of expenditures.

Granted, setting up, maintaining, and improving the infrastructure behind the web that we use every day is expensive; but, the fact is that the businesses involved will do whatever they can to postpone improvements for as long as they can.

In our business world corporate growth often means consolidation and acquisitions. With consolidation we have fewer but larger companies who control bigger segments of a market and can do so with lesser repercussions. Then of course is the mindset, especially amongst providers is that instead of having to pay for content to provide acquire the companies already doing that and control even more of the market.

The corporate world is about control and reducing any competition as much as they can. It is no different when it comes to companies that provide access to the Internet. We are constantly seeing consolidation amongst the access providers; and with the Comcast and NBC deal we are seeing the content provider acquisition part of the equation in all its glory.

There is a growing lack of competition and the end result that the end user will have fewer and fewer options. As this happens we will see the growth of trends of things like caps and traffic management; which are already occurring, increase and having to pay a higher prices for those services.

One last misconception is that this is just all about politics.

The reality here is that this is exactly what the companies what you think. The fact is that this doesn’t, and doesn’t need to have anything to do with the government. There is absolutely no reason for the government to get involved.

Yet we find companies that continue to push the limits of the consumer until the government has no choice but to step in due to the consumer demanding that somebody do something to stop the gouging of their wallets. When this point is reached the companies don’t care if the government gets involved because they will have achieved their goals.

The first goal being that they have reached the top end of the tolerance level of the consumer so even if the government forces them to step back they are already ahead of the game. the second point is that they now have given the consumer a much bigger target for future unrest and anger – the government. Now they will be able to point the finger at what ever government is in power and say – don’t blame us … blame them knowing full well that even as much as the consumer may hate the corporation they hate government worse.

Is net neutrality important?

In my opinion – yes.

Should the government be forced to have to step in?

No they shouldn’t.

Will they be forced to?

Yes.

Will the Web end up benefiting if they do?

No.

2011, Net Neutrality, A Couple of Misconceptions and Realities is a post from: The Inquisitr

The FCC has pushed their next scheduled meeting back from December 2 to December 21, leading some analysts to speculate that they will take that time to vote on the issue of net neutrality.

InformationWeek reports that three Democratic commissioners will likely vote for the “consumer-friendly regulation,” while two Republicans are asking for “relatively unfettered oversight favoring industry players.”

The issue of Net Neutrality has continued to heat up over the last year, in April 2010 the FCC sent a cease and desist order to Comcast, telling them to stop throttling video bandwidth. Comcast in that case argued that throttling such services ensured enough bandwidth was left for all regular browsing functionality. The Court Of Appeals of Washington ruled in favor of Comcast in that instance, a ruling that only stoked the fires of unfair play among many internet activists.

It’s still unclear if the FCC will actually vote on Net Neutrality come December 21, but if they do and issues such as throttling are allowed to occur, we can expect plenty of outrage during the Christmas holiday.

Where do you stand on the issue of Net Neutrality? Share your thoughts with us.

FCC Possibly Ready To Vote On Net Neutrality On December 21 is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’ve been watching this whole Google and Verizon lovefest that is going on but decided to hold off having my say until the inevitable disclaimer post from Google showed up and good to form it showed up on the Public Policy blog today.

I have to admit that it is a beautiful bit of spin doctoring and is sure to appease the real die-hard Google believers, as evidenced by some of the comments, but that is all it is – spin. However the points that Richard Whitt, Washington Telecom and Media Counsel, tries to make with the tried and true Myth vs. Fact format provide a good jumping off point.

MYTH: Google has “sold out” on network neutrality.

FACT: Google has been the leading corporate voice on the issue of network neutrality over the past five years. No other company is working as tirelessly for an open Internet.

But given political realities, this particular issue has been intractable in Washington for several years now. At this time there are no enforceable protections – at the Federal Communications Commission or anywhere else – against even the worst forms of carrier discrimination against Internet traffic.

The key wording to keep in mind from the first sentence of the Fact part – “Google has been the leading …”.

Remember this is a lawyer spinning the puke inducing pablum here and they are always, always, percise in their wording. He didn’t say “Google is the leading ….” because that would imply that the company is still a supporter but using has been still gives semantic wiggle room to make it appear as if the company is still a supporter. Like I said this is lawyer speak here and they always say exactly what needs to be said to keep them within the letter of the law.

The next section is a nice abdication of any current, or future, sense of responsibility or obligation to keep up any pretense that they are anything but a global corporation that needs to put their bottom line ahead of anything else. Of course nothing accomplishes this better than to shift the blame to the government – the same government that previous was condemn for even the slightest move to meddle in t heir affairs or profit margins via things like net neutrality.

An interesting side note to this as well is the fact that Google trotted out a telecom lawyer to try and gloss over this so-call policy proposal. Why, as noted by Tom Foremski, isn’t Vint Cerf out in front of this dog and pony show. After all he is the father of the Internet and touted as Google’s Chief Internet Evangelist. One would think that if this proposal really was a good thing for us and the Internet then Father Vint would be out there beating the drums yet all we have is – silence.

MYTH: This proposal represents a step backwards for the open Internet.

FACT: If adopted, this proposal would for the first time give the FCC the ability to preserve the open Internet through enforceable rules on broadband providers. At the same time, the FCC would be prohibited from imposing regulations on the Internet itself.

Here are some of the tangible benefits in our joint legislative proposal:

• Newly enforceable FCC standards
• Prohibitions against blocking or degrading wireline Internet traffic
• Prohibition against discriminating against wireline Internet traffic in ways that harm users or competition
• Presumption against all forms of prioritizing wireline Internet traffic
• Full transparency across wireline and wireless broadband platforms
• Clear FCC authority to adjudicate user complaints, and impose injunctions and fines against bad actors

Verizon has agreed to voluntarily abide by these same requirements going forward – another first for a major communications provider. We hope this action will convince other broadband companies to follow suit.

Enforceable rules? Isn’t this the very thing that the purveyors of “the free market will level everything out” retards have been arguing against. You know, companies like Google, Verizon and just about anybody else involved with providing the Web. So why all of a sudden is giving the FCC a set of teeth that will actually be able to do anything the solution?

As Fred Wilson wrote in a post this morning

In the past ten years, the on ramp to the Internet has changed. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of dial-up providers have been replaced in the US by a handful of broadband providers with local duopolies. And we now have a wireless Internet in the US with an on ramp controlled largely by four carriers (two of which have the dominant market share). And these access providers have invested heavily in packet detection systems that will allow them to use their dominant positions to “manage their networks”.

So now we have a situation where the access providers want to change the game. And they are seeking the regulatory approval to do just that.

This section of the Google post is were we also see the terminology wireline and wireless which of course is a distinction that Google and the broadband providers desperately need to make and con us into believing represent two different types of Internet traffic. Well there’s two problems with this, the first is the idea that a wireless Internet is somehow different that a wireline Internet.

Sorry but the Internet is the Internet. It’s all the same one’s and zero’s that don’t care how they are being transmitted. How you access that Internet might vary but there is not two distinctly different Internets.

The real ridiculousness though is that we are being led to believe that because the wireless access of the Internet is so fragile that the two main players in this part of the access game feel they need to be able to manage the traffic that flows over those wireless connections. There’s only one problem with this – it’s a bullshit argument because any management happens long before those one’s and zero’s reach local wireless transmitters.

Or as Tom Foremski puts it

But this is a bullshit argument. Internet traffic has to prioritized on the backbones and local networks before it gets to the local wireless transmitters therefore it will be available in a prioritized order to local wireline consumers too.

You catch that?

Ya … wirelined service would end up with the exact same management of traffic.

MYTH: This proposal would eliminate network neutrality over wireless.

FACT: It’s true that Google previously has advocated for certain openness safeguards to be applied in a similar fashion to what would be applied to wireline services. However, in the spirit of compromise, we have agreed to a proposal that allows this market to remain free from regulation for now, while Congress keeps a watchful eye.

Why? First, the wireless market is more competitive than the wireline market, given that consumers typically have more than just two providers to choose from.

Comprise – the famous last words for corporations like Google which usually end up meaning screw the consumer. The thing is, Google didn’t need to compromise with anyone let alone Verizon, especially under the lame pretense that Congress would keep a watch eye on things. This is a Congress after all where the telecoms probably own contribute to more Senators, Congressmen and Representatives than we even know about.

As for the competitive nature of the broadband providing market – give your head a shake. If Google truly believes this they’ve been drinking more of the Darth Vader kool-aid than I previously thought. Sorry, but they cannot be that freakin naive. As Fred Wilson noted, and I quoted above, the wireless market is controlled by four carriers out of which two of them have dominant market share. There is no competition and every bill you get, every phone you sign up for, proves this.

With this move Google has finally given up its do no evil mantra, even if they don’t think so, in exchanged for a preferential and easy road with the broadband providers. Ryan Singel at Epicenter writes:

The thing about surrendering is that it only keeps going.

But Google doesn’t care. By surrendering — and by surrendering, I mean, giving up the fight it claimed to be waging on your behalf for open wireless networks — it wins billions of dollars in online, mobile ad revenues.

As a result, openness in the mobile market is no longer in Google’s best interest.

Google likes to take jabs at Apple’s closed iPhone system, as Google exec Vic Gundotra did at Google’s I/O developer conference this spring. But that’s just a rhetorical sideshow.

Just as this whole post of lawyer spin-doctoring is really nothing more than a sideshow meant to pacify those who still believe that Google can do no wrong. Unfortunately though Google has decided that a version of the Internet that can let them prop up a business that is showing definite signs of age is more important than supporting a truly open Internet.

It may only be those of us in the tech business that will really be concerned over this shift but in the end this will affect everyone and change the Web as we know it.

Getting net-jacked by Google and Verizon is a post from: The Inquisitr

The FCC may be in the process of brokering a backroom deal that could send ripples through the net. The deal? Net Neutrality rules governing how they control information which they are rumored to be forming with various ISPs, Google, Skype and other agencies.

According to the Free Press

“It is stunning that the FCC would convene meetings between industry giants to allow them determine how the agency should best protect the public interest,” adding, “The Obama administration promised a new era of transparency, and to ‘take a backseat to no one’ on ‘Net neutrality, but these meetings seem to indicate that this FCC has no problem brokering backroom deals without any public input or scrutiny.”

The hope of the talks according to the Wall Street Journal is that the FCC will not gain total control over broadband use which could turn ISPs into a sort of internet/telecommunications carrier, bringing with that hybrid title an FCC governorship which could place certain carrier type rules on ISPs.

If there’s any light at the end of the tunnel it’s that more transparent meetings are scheduled about committee staff and numerous stakeholders this Friday which will provide an open forum for discussion.

Among the FCC’s pull for power, The Register reported last week that open chairman Julius Genachowski wants some of the organizations authority back, with a large part of that focus surrounding the FCC’s ability to regulate pipes, but not what goes through them. It’s an odd regulation considering regulating how much information can be passed through a pipe would in essence limit the type of information transferred, but perhaps I’m being a bit too pessimistic? No…I really don’t think I am.

FCC, where’s your “Four Freedoms” policy? It’s simple to form policies behind closed doors and unfortunately transparency doesn’t appear so transparent when you’ve already held your own closed door talks. Hell at this point I’d be willing to settle for opaque.

What do you think about the FCC’s most recent moves and statements? Perhaps I’m just being a crazy internet conspirator? Then again I don’t think I’m crazy and I don’t read too much into conspiracy theories beyond their funny thoughts.

Is The FCC Ready To Secretly Screw Web Users? Rumors Point To Yes! is a post from: The Inquisitr

Neelie Kroes, European Commissioner for Digital Agenda

Over here in the US and Canada we constantly hear the telecoms and cable companies beating their chests about how all these big sites like Google and their high volume brethren are abusing the networks and that they should be allowed to charge them just as they do us. This of course brings up the whole subject of net neutrality and threats of government intervention.

Well it appears that the European cousins to our telecoms feel the same way as they are hyping the same load of trash using the same old tired reasoning of

We need to explain that this will reduce incentives for us to invest in much-needed networks.

Just as over here they are facing stiff opposition according to a post on Geek.com

Everyone except the networks seem to disagree with such thinking as the telecoms companies make revenue from subscribers, not content providers. Such a stance has now been backed up by the European Commissioner for Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes.

In response to the threat of action against Google from Telefónica, France Telecom, and Deutsche Telekom, she said users have a right to choose what content they view online. She also said net neutrality meant no network could block, or limit the speed of commercial websites.

It is amazing how telecoms through their constant manipulation of words think that their argument even has any merit. The idea that Google or any other web service for that matter is the one’s responsible for the network traffic is mind-numbingly stupid.

Just stop and think logically for one minute. If you and I, and every other person on the web, stopped doing Google searches, stopped watching YouTube videos would Google be using any of the network as these telecoms claim?

No. They wouldn’t. That is why they are called services or content providers. If we, as consumers, don’t use their services, don’t read or watch their content, then they are just a blob on the network not using any of the network’s resources.

The nice thing is that unlike here in the US and Canada the EU actually has the will and the ability to back up their threats to the telecoms.

European telecoms told by EU to think twice is a post from: The Inquisitr

Amazingly there is other news that just the constant and increasingly boring iPad stories.

That is if the fact that the FCC lost in the courts to Comcast is of interest as you tear yourself away from the App Store and put your wallet away. The general consensus is that it is a good thing that the FCC did lose because it is felt that the Commission was overstepping its bounds when it came to the Internet.

From Paul Levinson

Of the two manifest evils – government regulation of the Internet vs. corporate domination – government regulation is far worse and dangerous. It’s an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. Government insistence on any mode of behavior carries with it the threat of arrest and imprisonment and force of arms against those who are not in compliance. The worst that a corporation can do is take your money. Not good, but not as bad as the worst that the government can do.

Mike Masnick at Techdirt

Lots of people seem upset by this, but they should not be. This is the right decision. The FCC was clearly going beyond its mandate, as it has no mandate to regulate the internet in this manner. In fact, what amazed us throughout this whole discussion was that it was the same groups that insisted the FCC had no mandate over the broadcast flag, that suddenly insisted it did have a mandate over net neutrality. You can’t have it both ways (nor should you want to). Even if you believe net neutrality is important, allowing the FCC to overstep its defined boundaries is not the best way to deal with it. So for those of you upset by this ruling, look at it a little more closely, and be happy that the FCC has been held back from expanding its own mandate. Otherwise, the next time the FCC tried to do something like the broadcast flag or suddenly decided it could enforce “three strikes,” you’d have little argument.

Jeff Jarvis adds

I’ve amended my proposed Bill of Rights in Cyberspace thanks to a suggestion in the comments from Jeff Sonderman: All data are created equal. I made that all bits are created equal, which broadens it somewhat and is quite relevant today in the discussion of net neutrality that will explode because of an Appeals Court decision in Washington that told the FCC it did not have jurisdiction to tell Comcast to stop discriminating on bits.

Here’s the rub: On the one hand, I do not want government regulation of the internet. On the other hand, I do not want monopoly discrimination against bits on the internet. I see it as a principle that all bits are, indeed, created equal. But how is this enforced when internet service is provided by monopolies? Regulation. But I don’t want regulation. But… That is the vicious cycle of the net neutrality debate.

Now as much as I, like Jeff Jarvis, would really like to see “Internet Equality” as a shining beacon the reality of the situation now and the road going forward is entirely different. Jarvis likes to point to the fact that all bits should be treated equal when in actuality it is the farthest thing from the truth. Broadband providers would like to have us believe that Internet phone service is different from web access and content delivery and is different yet again from television delivered over the net for which they charge us three different prices.

Can we say double-dipping or maybe more appropriately triple-dipping?

Any digital data that travels over any kind of delivery system is all the same ones and zeros. There is no difference as far as the pipe is concerned folks no matter how hard they try to convince you otherwise.

That is the most basic principal of what everyone calls Net Neutrality – all the bits in the pipe are the same. There is no telephone bits, no television bits and no Internet bits.

The problem that the broadband providers have if this argument becomes the accepted norm is that they then can’t charge us the consumers three different fees and different rates based on some illusion of there being any differences. They also can’t cry wolf when they claim that video is killing their networks because those video bits are the same ones and zeros that make up the phone or television bits.

Up until now though Comcast and the other major broadband providers have been held in check by the mere threat of FCC intervention. They’ve had to play nice with the consumer and make it appear as if that they are benign gatekeepers but don’t kid yourself they are only bidding their time and today’s court decision will have far reaching consequences. Consequences that the consumer is going to be on the receiving end of.

Don’t get me wrong I am really hesitant of any government agencies getting involved with any type of regulation of the Internet. We only have to look to France and England to see where that road leads. However if anyone thinks that Comcast and other providers aren’t popping the champagne corks over this announcement .. well .. you’re a fool.

And trust me – we’ll be paying for all that champagne .. one way or another.

That sound of a cash register going cha-ching – it’s just Comcast celebrating FCC loss is a post from: The Inquisitr

When it comes to the Web and the Internet as a whole nothing polarizes people, companies and organization quicker that the subject of Net Neutrality. As the FTC progresses through developing its proposals for regulations meant to guarantee some sort of Net Neutrality in the U.S. everyone is trying to exert whatever influence they might have on those proposals.

Yesterday the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF) issued a call to arms for people to let the FTC know that any messing with potential regulations by financial impacted companies – especially when it comes to copyrights – isn’t acceptable.

What has the EFF up in arms specifically is what they see as a loophole in the proposed regulations that would require ISPs to become copyright cops. From the email sent out by the EFF:

Tell the FCC: Don’t let Hollywood hijack the Internet

Last fall, the Federal Communications Commission proposed rules for “Net Neutrality” – a set of regulations intended to help innovation and free speech continue to thrive on the Internet.

Buried in the FCC’s rules is a deeply problematic loophole. Open Internet principles, the FCC writes, “do not … apply to activities such as the unlawful distribution of copyrighted works.”

For years, the entertainment industry has used that innocent-sounding phrase – “unlawful distribution of copyrighted works” – to pressure Internet service providers around the world to act as copyright cops – to surveil the Internet for supposed copyright violations, and then censor or punish the accused users.

From the beginning, a central goal of the Net Neutrality movement has been to prevent corporations from interfering with the Internet in this way – so why does the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality specifically allow them to do so?

Source: Network World

There is no doubt that the issue has made for some strange bedfellows and also the requisite backroom dealings and threats. Even companies like Google and Verizon who issued a joint statement on the matter don’t always agree when it comes to the meat of the matter.

They ticked through a variety of things they agree on, such as “encouraging investment and innovation of broadband network” and “providing users with information.”

Sadly, the lawyers who’ve been racking up sizeable billable hours while crafting missives to the FCC couldn’t find common ground on everything. “We continue to disagree on some of these matters,” the companies acknowledged.

That’s a bit of an understatement, judging from the voluminous filings each company made with the agency yesterday.(Google = 98 pages; Verizon = 139 pages)
Noting that the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules would apply to Internet providers, not companies that offer services over the Internet, Verizon wrote that “it is no mystery, after all, why dominant Internet incumbents such as Google are among the strongest proponents of net neutrality rules – their incentive is to lock in place through regulation advantages they have established for themselves based on today’s predominant business models.”

Google, meanwhile, didn’t slam Verizon by name in its FCC filing, although it noted it believes (unlike Verizon) that wireless networks should be covered by net neutrality rules and that broadband providers should be subject to more oversight.

“At their core, today’s broadband networks are the result of government-sanctioned
monopolies, the grant of public benefits and their attendant enormous market advantages and economies of scale, scope and ubiquity. The government should have a role to ensure that all of these public contributions are put toward serving the public interest,” Google wrote.

Source: Wall Street Journal

It should come as no surprise either that supposedly autonomous agencies are also coming out on both sides of the issues but what is more than interesting as the team at Ars Technica found out is when you start looking at the funding of these agencies and which side of the issue they line up with.

One just has to look to AT&T and their arguing against the FTC involvement with Net Neutrality and then examine some rather unlikely submissions to the FTC hearings to see the match up.

• Kankakee County Farm Bureau
  • but reps from the Farm Bureau, AT&T, and Comcast sit together on the local Chamber of Commerce Government Affairs Committee
• Erie Neighborhood House
  • It also received $10,000-$25,000 from Comcast in 2009, along with $5,000-$10,000 from AT&T Illinois, according to its annual report.
• Downtown Springfield Inc
  • AT&T is a member of the group.
• Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Will and Grundy Counties
  • The Big Brothers/Big Sisters, especially at the local level, aren’t known for having opinions of the innovation effects of government policies in the telecommunications sector… but they do take money from AT&T
• Ministerial Alliance Against the Digital Divide
• Schaumberg Business Association
• Mayor of Chicago

Now while tech companies in of themselves might not seem to have much of a stake in this process the fact is that for many of them Net Neutrality is an important issue.  Google has come out obviously on the side of the users in the issue even though net neutrality would benefit them as well (see video at the end of the post for more on this).

The Internet was designed to empower users. Its open, “end-to-end” architecture means that users – not network providers or anyone else – decide what succeeds or fails online. It’s a formula that has worked incredibly well, resulting in mind blowing innovation, incredible investment, and more consumer choice than ever.

Source: Google’s Official Public Policy Blog

Then thrre are tech companies that could be impacted by any decisions made by the FTC. One such company is Skype:

Evidence suggests that carriers have the incentive and ability to harm innovation in the real-time communications application market, such as that made possible by Skype, either by outright blocking or more subtle forms of discrimination. Because these applications offer consumers additional choice and savings, they should not be delayed, obstructed or throttled by broadband access providers.

Source: GigaOM

Of course this is all happening during the time when the entertainment industry and their many trade groups are pushing hard, on a global level, for the adoption of ACTA. It has even gotten to the level where the US is using trade threats to force other countries to accept trade agreements that either include ACTA or mimic it.

Costa Rica is discovering this type of negotiating when it comes to trying to get final approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement pushed through Congress

Reports from Costa Rica indicate that final approval of the Central American Free Trade Agreement with the United States is languishing in the Legislative Assembly due to concerns over the copyright provisions.  The CAFTA copyright provisions are similar to those found in the other major U.S. trade agreements concluded in recent years: DMCA-style protections, ISP liability, and copyright term extension are all part of the package.

In this case, it is the responses that are most noteworthy. Within Costa Rica, the article reports that the copyright provisions in the trade treaty have set off a wave of student protests over what it means for education.  Meanwhile, health officials are concerned that the provisions on pharmaceutical products “would bankrupt the public health system.” The response from the U.S. is important as well.  It is delaying market access to sugar from the developing country until the copyright reforms are in place.  Until that time, Costa Rican sugar producers will not be able to sell their product in the U.S.

Source: Professor Michael Geist

At the root of all these discussions going on, whether it be US centric Net Neutrality regulations to trade negotiations with the US, the wholesale gutting of existing copyright laws; both in the US and sovereign countries, in order to benefit the US entertainment industry.

image via vBeta.pl

Net Neutrality is a good thing as long as it screws with copyrights is a post from: The Inquisitr

Surprise, surprise but it seems that against all odds the FCC is going to be proposing new rules regarding network neutrality this coming Monday.

Amy Schatz in a post at the Wall Street Journal says that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski will be outlining the new rules that would prevent Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from slowing Web traffic or selectively blocking it.

If adopted, rules to promote so-called net neutrality could be a win for consumers who want to get movies online or access big data files, and in turn benefit Internet companies like Google Inc. that want to offer new video or other services online.

While this is still only at a proposal stage it is encouraging to see that consumers actually stand a chance of seeing something like net neutrality actually come about.

Well I’ll be damned – FCC to propose ‘Net Neutrality’ rules is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Internet is screwed.

Net Neutrality could very well be another idealized concept that is about to be thrown out with the bathwater. At least that is what is being reported in the Wall Street Journal Online. According to Vishesh Kumar and Christopher Rhoads the big boys who agreed a few years ago to support Net Neutrality have been quietly pulling out of their little club. Microsoft and Yahoo has been forging partnerships with the phone and cable companies on the sly.

But word has it though, that Google has also been approaching major players in both areas with a proposal to create a fast lane for their own content – in other words screw everyone else. Now as bad as this might sound it is nothing to the turn around by Professor Lawrence Lessig on net neutrality. He is quoted in the article as saying

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

Eh tu Professor?

While we can expect corporate greed to be the driving force behind the actions of Google, Microsoft and Yahoo to dismantle the basic concept of what the Internet is about in order to increase their profit margins this doesn’t explain Lessig’s capitulation. After all this is the man behind the Creative Commons movement. This is the man who said he wanted to change the way Congress behaves – an open government. This is the man that is best buds with the Prez to be and is rumoured to be in line for an appointment of some sort at the FCC.

Oh wait a minute … it’s becoming a little clearer now. Soften one’s stance on net neutrality and you to can get a cushy government job. Well we all understand how that game is played. So even though Obama spoke many times during the election about how important net neutrality is we have Lessig on the left and Schmidt on the right of President-in-waiting Obama both of whom seem to think it’s okay if net neutrality gets dismantled.

As Om Malik said in a post about this news

Given how close President-elect Obama is to the current Google management, I can only fear the worst. Many startups might skip over this issue, which I constantly bring up, but they need to wake up and realize that in the end they are all going to be impacted if network neutrality is backstabbed to death. If Google can buy better performance for its service, your web app might be at a disadvantage. If the cost of doing business means paying baksheesh to the carriers, then it is the end of innovation as we know it.

Even though Om has updated his original post with news that Google is not abandoning net neutrality I think that the real story here is the fact that Professor Lessig is moving away from it. I am sure his worshippers will jump all over this spouting off how wrong I am but read it for yourselves. He states that it would be okay to prioritize internet traffic.

That is kissing off net neutrality no matter how you slice it.

Thanks Professor – for nothing.

Lessig starting to kiss some powerful butts is a post from: The Inquisitr

Here’s a graph showing the outage

Yup we have a stable access to the wonders of the web and the future of cloud computing. Right.

So this is what corporate Net Neutrality looks like is a post from: The Inquisitr