You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1462)

PLAYS: (2281)

Glenn Beck unveiled his master conspiracy theory yesterday on his Fix News show, essentially claiming the Obama Administration is conspiring to control the media and bring everyone under government control. A key to this, he claimed, was its advocacy of Net Neutrality -- since, as we've already observed, Beck prefers corporate control of your content to government regulations preventing such control.

He displayed just how well he understands these Intertoobs things, too:

Beck: Anyway, you may remember, FreePress is the group pushing for Net Neutrality, which would take the Internet out of the private hands of private business and into the hands of the government. It would create a level playing field. It would help diversity. It would destroy the free market that created the Internet.

Yeah, that sounds real scary Glenn. Except, of course, that the "free market" didn't "create the Internet". It was, in fact, originally a creation of those things that Glenn Beck hates so much: a government program. As Wikipedia explains:

The origins of the Internet reach back to the 1960s when the United States funded research projects of its military agencies to build robust, fault-tolerant and distributed computer networks. This research and a period of civilian funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation spawned worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies and led to the commercialization of an international network in the mid 1990s, and resulted in the following popularization of countless applications in virtually every aspect of modern human life.

Sure, the "free market" has played the most significant role in the massive expansion of the Internet since those origins, but it didn't "create" the Internet.

Meanwhile, Beck has yet to explain how regulations constraining the mega-corporations that provide our Internet infrastructure from deciding what content we can and can't access would actually take the system "out of the private hands of private business".

Maybe Beck can explain to us why Comcast was attacking peer-to-peer file sharing on its network system.

Maybe he can tell us why Verizon Wireless was able to deny a pro-choice group access to its text service.

Because those are, you know, actual issues involving real free speech -- not just imagined possible hypothetical scenarios wargamed out by that crack Glenn Beck Research Team.

If Beck were serious about defending not just free speech but freedom of thought, he'd be fully in favor of Net Neutrality. But he's not.

Though we already knew that.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1227)

PLAYS: (3269)

For the second day in a row (Monday's show being so chockful o'wingnuttery that we didn't have time to post on it) Glenn Beck devoted two whole segments to the subject of net neutrality.

And for the second night in a row, the discussion featured a guy named Phil Kerpen from Americans For Prosperity, which has a long history of shilling for whatever right-wing corporate agenda it can suck out money for: tobacco interests, health-insurance companies, corporate polluters have all pitched in money so that AFP can variously promote tobacco, lobby against health-care reform (it was one of the original promoters of the Tea Parties) and push the idea that global warming isn't really happening.

And now he's out pushing the notion that somehow, regulating Internet providers so that they cannot determine or limit public access is the same thing as communism. Or something like that. When you have Glenn Beck as your No. 1 cheerleader, logic doesn't actually have to enter into it.

Especially not facts. Because Beck appears to have no idea at all what Net Neutrality is actually all about.

As Timothy Karr explained on Democracy Now last month:

And net neutrality is really the fundamental openness principle of the internet. Whenever you connect to the internet, net neutrality makes sure that you can connect to everyone else who’s on the internet. And this has been a tremendous engine for free speech, for economic innovation, for equal opportunity. And we are now fighting with some very prominent internet service providers, very powerful companies, to try to preserve that fundamental openness, so that whenever we go online we can choose, as users, where we go and what we do via the internet.

Somehow, Beck is able to transform this into an attack on "freedom of speech" -- when it obviously is precisely the opposite.

To guys like Beck, you see, the only threat to our liberties is from the government. Giant corporations that control our means of information, not so much.

Indeed, his argument boils down to a simple proposition: "Freedom" means letting powerful business interests control the public's access to the internet.

Hm. That's some kinda freedom.

ThinkProgress has more:

Continue reading »

Great news if it stays in! It seems it's included in the stimulus bill:

"Cnet is reporting that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (PDF), currently in the House Appropriations Committee, contains Net Neutrality provisions: 'The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. ... The catch is that the federal largesse comes with Net neutrality strings attached. ... recipients must operate broadband and high-speed wireless networks on an "open access basis." The FCC, soon to be under Democratic control, is charged with deciding what that means. Congress didn't see fit to include a definition.' The broadband grants appear to begin in SEC. 3101 (pg. 49) of the PDF."

Jamie covered this a few weeks ago, but now it's official.  Score one for us on net neutrality.

UPI:  (h/t Nate)

Broadband Internet customers of cable television giant Comcast should be free to use file-sharing software, the Federal Communications Commission says.

The commission voted Friday to order Comcast to stop blocking its Internet customers from using BitTorrent, an online software application that enables users to share large movie, TV show and music files, The Hollywood Reporter said.

Commission Chairman Kevin Martin split with his Republican colleagues to join the two Democratic members to produce a 3-2 vote against Comcast. The precedent-setting decision was hailed by supporters of so-called net neutrality, which maintains Internet service providers should be barred from discriminating among various types of traffic.

"It was unreasonable for Comcast to discriminate against particular Internet applications, including BitTorrent," Martin wrote in his majority opinion. "They delayed and blocked customers using a disfavored application even when there was no network congestion."

Whodathunk Kevin Martin would stand up against his Republican colleagues for what's right?  But that only slightly makes up for the wholly egregious new policies of the Homeland Security office: 

The gropers at the Department of Homeland Security, not content with patting you down and rummaging through your underwear, now say that they can confiscate electronics brought into the U.S. for any reason, anytime, and share the devices and their contents with anybody.

The Washington Post reports:

Federal agents may take a traveler's laptop or other electronic device to an off-site location for an unspecified period of time without any suspicion of wrongdoing, as part of border search policies the Department of Homeland Security recently disclosed.

Translation into plain English: Homeland Security can take your stuff for any reason ("without suspicion of wrongdoing"), for however long it wants to ('unspecified period of time").

Also, officials may share copies of the laptop's contents with other agencies and private entities for language translation, data decryption or other reasons, according to the policies, dated July 16 and issued by two DHS agencies, U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Translation: DHS the information on your electronic devices with anyone it wants to share the information with ("other agencies and private entities").

 Lovely.  I guess the terrorists can't hate us for our freedoms if we have none left.

  This is some of the best news I've heard in a while. Matt Stoller at OpenLeft has compiled statements from every major Democratic Senate candidate on net neutrality and is happy to report that they all support it and plan to fight hard to make it law.

OpenLeft:

For the last few months, we've been posting Democratic Senate challenger positions on net neutrality here at OpenLeft.  Since we started posting, we've been getting in statements and positions, from blogs like Cotton Mouth and the Political Base, from the candidates themselves, and from readers who took the time to ask and send in statements.  I'm happy to report that every single Democratic challenger with more than $500k in cash on hand has announced their support for net neutrality.  This is a milestone for the fight for internet freedom.  I included statements reacting to this news from Senator Byron Dorgan, Speaker Pelosi, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, Google public policy director Alan Davidson, and Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu.   

Make sure to go over and read all the responses and consider dropping a dime in the coffers of these great candidates. Many, many important issues are going to be decided during the next Congress and we can't afford to have them decided by the likes of Norm Coleman and Ted "Tubes" Stevens.

TPM Election Central (h/t Blogenfreude):

Senator Chris Dodd plans to put a hold on the Senate FISA renewal bill because it reportedly grants retroactive immunity to telephone companies for any role they played in the Bush administration's warrantless eavesdropping program, Election Central has learned.

Dodd will send a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this afternoon informing him of his decision. Dodd also plans to put up a page today at his campaign web site where opponents of the immunity provision can register their opposition.

Updated by Amato. Fill out Dodd's FISA petition:

The Military Commissions Act. Warrantless wiretapping. Shredding of Habeas Corpus. Torture. Extraordinary Rendition. Secret Prisons. No more.

I have decided to place a "hold" on the latest FISA bill that would have included amnesty for telecommunications companies that enabled the President's assault on the Constitution by illegally providing personal information on their customers without judicial authorization...

Jane Hamsher brought the question up to him last week....

Meanwhile, Pat Leahy throws Rockefeller under the bus — where he belongs — for letting things get so far down the road that this became necessary...read on

Net neutrality, anyone? What an incredibly slippery slope we're now hurtling down...

Scholars&Rogues:

Slashdot broke the news on Saturday that AT&T's updated terms of service for its high-speed Internet packages essentially forbid you from criticizing the company on pain of cancellation. The full terms of service are here, and here's the offending passage highlighted, courtesy of Ars Technica:

AT&T may immediately terminate or suspend all or a portion of your Service, any Member ID, electronic mail address, IP address, Universal Resource Locator or domain name used by you, without notice, for conduct that AT&T believes (a) violates the Acceptable Use Policy; (b) constitutes a violation of any law, regulation or tariff (including, without limitation, copyright and intellectual property laws) or a violation of these TOS, or any applicable policies or guidelines, or (c) tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.

This is the exact kind of overbroad legalese that gets companies in trouble in ways they probably never thought of. If I am an AT&T subscriber, for example, and I post derogatory comments about AT&T on a site they own, does this give them leave to terminate my service? What if I post or send a complaint about AT&T to a complaint site or consumer news site, like ConsumerAffairs.Com (whom I write for), and they publish said complaint? Am I liable if I was using my AT&T ISP while writing said complaint? What if I did so while using my laptop at a Wi-Fi hotspot? The mind boggles.

Martin at S&R continues on with other egregious acts that AT&T has committed in the last few years, from cooperating with the Bush Administration on domestic wiretapping to blocking NARAL's text messages. And while Verizon's Terms of Service are no better, this kind of corporate fascism is truly disturbing. Tim Karr has more.  Thankfully, I don't use AT&T or Verizon for my service, so I feel comfortable quoting William O. Douglas to them:

Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

 

Remember that.

Hardly surprising. AP via CBS News, h/t Make Them Accountable:

The Justice Department on Thursday said Internet service providers should be allowed to charge a fee for priority Web traffic.

The agency told the Federal Communications Commission, which is reviewing high-speed Internet practices, that it is opposed to "Net neutrality," the principle that all Internet sites should be equally accessible to any Web user.

Several phone and cable companies, such as AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp., have previously said they want the option to charge some users more money for loading certain content or Web sites faster than others.

Read more...

This is bad, bad news for all of us...

vnunet.com: (h/t Scarecrow)

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to abandon net neutrality and allow telecoms companies to charge websites for access.

The FTC said in a report that, despite popular support for net neutrality, it was minded to let the market sort out the issue.

This means that the organisation will not stand in the way of companies using differential pricing to make sure that some websites can be viewed more quickly than others. The report also counsels against net neutrality legislation.

Information Week via Save The Internet:

The news story about the FTC report notes that "the FTC sided with high-speed Internet providers such as AT&T and Verizon," and trotted out once again hollow justifications like "such rules could stifle innovation" and ""This report recommends that policy makers proceed with caution in the evolving, dynamic industry of broadband Internet access, which generally is moving toward more - not less - competition," which it probably didn't even think up itself, but copied from industry propaganda.[..]

Technological innovation in broadband access is a threat to corporate profits, and the FTC report comes down on the side not of the public interest but of the private interests.

As a government policy, this isn't working. Communication Workers of America union puts it this way:

Our reliance on market forces, deregulation, and inadequate governmental programs has not served us well. We invest relatively less on communications; we are charged more for slower speeds; millions encounter a significant digital divide based on income and geography, and unionized jobs with good wages and benefits are being replaced by low-wage jobs with less training and higher turnover.

Afraid of the potential stifling of information to you? Good. Then go to Save The Internet and see what you can do to fight. There are literally only days left for you to get your voice heard.

Save the Internet:

According to The Register on Friday, John Kneuer, assistant secretary of commerce and head of the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), "quickly lost his temper and began shouting" after an audience of technology experts pressed him to explain how the U.S. had fallen so far behind other developed countries in providing Internet access to citizens.

Kneuer claimed that free market competition was the reason for the Internet's "great success," dismissing the history of Net Neutrality protections that have fostered new innovations and public participation online.

Kneuer, who previously served as a top phone company lobbyist for Washington law firm Piper Rudnick, told the audience that the "free market" (by which he means the current duopoly of large phone and cable companies) should be unencumbered by consumer protections and basic Internet freedoms.

Kneuer is a member of the camp of neo-cons who categorically refuse to "even *think* about regulation to promote competition," writes Harold Feld of Media Access Project.

Chalk one up for the Net Neutrality.

Reuters: One of the five members of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission on Wednesday threw his support behind a proposal that would require the winner of a coming auction of valuable wireless airwaves to offer access to rivals.

Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, a Democrat, said he supports the idea of imposing an "open-access" condition on companies bidding to acquire part of the spectrum.

"We need to identify meaningful spectrum on which to establish an open-access environment," Adelstein told Reuters, expanding on remarks he made earlier at a telecommunications industry conference. "This will open these key airwaves to badly needed competition.

FreePress has collected 250,000 signatures for keeping the airwaves for the public good. You can join in the ongoing fight here.

Variety: (h/t MS)

"Net neutrality" may sound like something only a Web geek could love, but at some point showbiz, largely indifferent to it so far, will have to start declaring an interest -- perhaps passionately.

Why? Because Net neutrality -- or, as some call it, Net regulation -- has the potential to affect content protection, otherwise known as Priority No. 1 of the entertainment industry.

Access to online content, itself no small concern, could also be at stake.[..]

But there's no rule that says it has to be that way. If you get your Internet from Time Warner Cable, for example, there's nothing to stop it from sending you content from Time Warner sites first and doling out content from the competition with whatever bandwidth happens to be left over.

Nor is there anything to keep an Internet service provider like Earthlink from taking fees from Disney or NBC Universal to give some sites priority -- and to block other sites altogether.

That would give Web sites with deep pockets behind them a new advantage in getting their content in front of Web users, while sites that can't afford those fees could be kicked to the virtual curb.

Save the Internet:

Mr. Chairman, the upcoming auction of spectrum in the 700 band has profound implications for consumers, schools, businesses, emergency first responders, and rural communities. We are presented with a unique opportunity to shape the future of wireless communication and innovation in America.

With this auction, we stand at a crossroads-we can either provide extraordinary benefits to millions of Americans or tilt bandwidth policy to line the pockets of a privileged few.

There is a clear path I believe must be taken: the airwaves belong to the American people, and their use should serve the public interest. Read on...

For those of us who recognize the power of the internet tubes in disseminating information--especially while living in a time where our elected officials are trying hard to keep information from us, this couldn't be a more crucial fight.

ZDNet: (link fixed)

Five of the largest ISPs in the US are to start charging businesses for guaranteed delivery of their emails, in a bid to combat spam.

Goodmail Systems, which provides a service called CertifiedEmail, announced on Thursday that it had signed up Comcast, Cox Communications, Time Warner Cable's Road Runner and Verizon as customers. Emails certified using the system are marked with a blue ribbon to show they come from a trusted source, thus bypassing spam filters - a privilege which will cost the sender a quarter of a US cent per email.

The voluntary scheme is aimed at large corporations and financial institutions whose mass mailings are most likely to be spoofed and caught in spam filters. Non-profit groups will be able to use the service for roughly a tenth of the commercial rate.[..]

According to Goodmail, seven US ISPs are now using CertifedEmail, accounting for 60 percent of the US population. Goodmail - which takes up to 50 percent of the revenue generated by the scheme - will for now only approve mail sent by companies and organisations which have been operational for a year or more. Ordinary users can still apply to be whitelisted by individual ISPs, which effectively provides the same trusted status.

I'm reading their justification, but...call me cynical, this just seems like a very dangerous slippery slope. In fact, I asked a few other bloggers their opinion and one directed me to this EFF statement:

Remember the famous email rumor that made the rounds in the 1990s: "Congress is trying to tax your Internet connection, write in now!"

Well what wasn't true in the 1990s is apparently coming true in 2006, only the beneficiaries won't be Uncle Sam -- it will be Yahoo, AOL, and a company ironically called Goodmail.

Cory Doctorow: There's an inverse correlation between the regulation of speech and the freedom of a society. Trying to filter the internet is ridiculous and dangerous.

Save the Internet:

AT&T chief Ed Whitacre handed the keys over to his replacement Randall Stephenson yesterday, but not before giving a rousing pep talk to fellow executives in the company's San Antonio board room. We just received exclusive video of the AT&T chairman's parting speech.

"There's a problem. It's called Net Neutrality," Whitacre told the heirs to AT&T's telecommunications empire. "Well, frankly, we say to hell with that. We're gonna put up some toll booths and start charging admission."This statement echoes those made in the press by Whitacre and Stephenson over the last two years.

Despite claims of poverty whenever pressed to offer better services, these AT&T execs are privately gloating over more than $35 billion in gross profits over the last 12 months. Moreover, Whitacre (and now Stephenson) are pressuring Congress to allow them to provide privileged Web access to their customers to companies that pay them a special fee.

"Will Congress let us do it?" Whitacre asks his colleagues. "You bet they will - cuz we don't call it cashin' in. We call it ‘deregulation.' "