Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Fate of the Internet. Decided in a Back Room

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:24 AM
Original message
The Fate of the Internet. Decided in a Back Room
While the McChrystal fiasco depletes all the oxygen, this is what's going on in a secret meeting today, winding up meetings from yesterday.


Tim Karr at Common Dreams reports:


June 22, 2010


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 keeps control over the Internet with the people who use it.

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.

We’ve seen government cater to big business in the same ways, prior to the BP oil disaster and the sub-prime mortgage meltdown. The Industry's regulatory capture of the Internet is now almost complete. The leadership of the one agency tasked with oversight of communications policy now thinks they can wriggle free of their obligation to protect the open Internet if only industry agrees on a solution.

Congress is holding its own series of 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 policy-making 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.

.....

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.

.....






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.




"Compromise". "Bipartisanship". "Brokering a deal".


When will it be enough?





(bold type added)








Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:27 AM
Response to Original message
1. More change, oh boy
Just not change for the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:29 AM
Response to Original message
2. That sound is my blood boiling
:grr:

Bastards
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. Just the thought of it is boiling my blood. And I mean an INTENSE BOIL!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burnsei sensei Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
3. That's called informal authority.
And it's not the rule of law.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lance_Boyle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
4. Outrage fail - google supports net neutrality.
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 11:34 AM by Lance_Boyle
http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality_letter.html

The outrageously top-secret cabal meeting with the FCC is actually pretty balanced on the issue.

on edit - had forgotten to unrec for the unwarranted melodrama

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. I choose to remain cynical
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. um, google sold out and acquiesced to China's request for censorship....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #4
40. google already blocks a lot of stuff from your searches without you knowing n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Newest Reality Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
5. More negative numbers in the freedom equation.
"One if by land. Two if by sea. Three if by Internet!"
- Cyber-Paul Revere

I see three lamps lit. Hmmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
6. Once we lose the Internet, we're history...
Corporations will be able to do what they've done for decades: control public opinion. If it wasn't for the Internet, we would never have heard about Stolen Election 2000, 9/11 fabrications, Iraq war lies, etc.etc.etc...

We would have been at the mercy of Fox News and its wannabees.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
8. once again, the public is locked out of the room, not even near the table....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:00 PM
Response to Original message
10. Civics fail. How is the FCC not considered the public's representative?
The FCC is an arm of the government, which was elected by the people. If you don't like what the FCC is doing, there are clear lines of responsibility back to elected officials. You might consider the FCC unresponsive to your viewpoint, but it is your representative at the table.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nemo137 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #10
21. Many people have a distinct, and at least in part justified, distrust of their gov't
bureaucracy especially, since that's a nice place to burrow ideologues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jester Messiah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #21
24. Sure
But no matter how much you distrust your representative, he/she is your representative, until such time as you are able to effect change in that department.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillbillyBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
37. Well that distrust on my part comes from the
drown the government bullshit from the reichwhiners who have F up our entire government since runnyraygun of the drizzlin shits economy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #10
31. Well that depends upon definition.
Do you consider "closed door" meetings to be the hallmark of democracy and transparency in government?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:04 PM
Response to Original message
11. The issue of Net Neutrality is too critical to be left to back room deals, any compromise.
on that issue will stink to high heaven with the real users; of the Internet, that being the American People.

Thanks for the thread, seafan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthCarolina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. Isn't it great that we have complete "Transparency" under Obama.
Not like all the closed-door, back room stuff we had under W. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
13. sad that even though dems make all the compromises they still are promoting compromise nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
14. I hope there will be enough rebels to start a pirate internet, or we are fucked
The problem is that the infrastructure and is in the hands of rich people. They control the telecom companies.
A pirate internet would have to use pirate antenas as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HillbillyBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #14
36. That was my thought
My partner and I started a provider and then were going to buy out an wireless net system (licensing, equipment, software etc) which would have been a second over the air internet, but got cheated at the last minute when an old business partner stepped in and elbowed us figuratively out of the way and he sold it overseas illegally.

We would have to have either radio bandwidth or start stringing new wires/fiberoptics..and where would the start up capital come from?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenny blankenship Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. Why should it be any different than your health "care"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Subdivisions Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
16. If they take the Internet, they will finally see the People's wrath. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleita Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
17. Well we can fall back half a century or more.
Edited on Tue Jun-22-10 12:38 PM by Cleita
There still is short wave radio. I don't think anyone has figured out how to control it yet. It was used widely during WWII and the cold war to get information in places controlled by propaganda especially in Soviet Union bloc countries who couldn't get news otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seafan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
19. 2003: FCC: Public Be Damned (Not much has changed.)
During the blanket of propaganda aimed at the public over the Iraq invasion and WMDs, John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney wrote in The Nation:


May 15, 2003


Cheered on by the Bush Administration and powerful media conglomerates, Federal Communications Commission chair Michael Powell is pushing ahead with a June 2 vote to gut longstanding rules designed to prevent the growth of media monopolies. If successful, Powell's push could, in the words of dissident commissioner Michael Copps, "dramatically our nation's media landscape without the kind of debate and analysis that these issues clearly merit." Copps and the other Democratic commissioner, Jonathan Adelstein, have asked for a thirty-day delay in the vote, but Powell has the upper hand--he and two other Republican commissioners form a majority on the five-member FCC. The chairman will not win without a fight, however, as his decision to force a vote on rule changes that have not been broadly debated or analyzed has provoked a fierce response from the widest coalition of critics ever to weigh in on an FCC rule-making decision.

Powell's contempt for public opinion, evidenced by his scheduling of only one official hearing on the proposed rule changes, is so great that he refused invitations to nine semiofficial hearings at which other commissioners were present. The hearings drew thousands of citizens and close to universal condemnation of the rule changes. Likewise, an examination of roughly half the 18,000 public statements filed electronically with the FCC show that 97 percent of them oppose permitting more media concentration. Even media moguls Barry Diller and Ted Turner have raised objections, with Turner complaining, "There's really five companies that control 90 percent of what we read, see and hear. It's not healthy."

Outraged by Powell's antidemocratic approach, Common Cause has launched a national petition drive demanding a delay in the vote, while web activists at MoveOn.org are highlighting the issue in bulletins and calling on the "media corps" they organized to monitor media bias during the Iraq war to turn its energies toward stopping the FCC vote. Consumers Union and Free Press, a national media-reform network, have launched a letter-writing campaign to Congress and the FCC from www.mediareform.net. Local governments are also getting involved; the Chicago City Council urged rejection of the proposed changes in a resolution that declared: "Unchecked media consolidation benefits a small number of corporate interests at the expense of the public interest."

Noting that the consolidation of radio ownership that followed passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act has proven disastrous for pop music, journalism and local communities, Bonnie Raitt, Billy Joel, Don Henley, Patti Smith, Pearl Jam and other musicians signed a letter telling Powell they were "extremely concerned as American citizens that increased concentration of media ownership will have a negative impact on access to diverse viewpoints and will impede the functioning of our democracy." Nearly 300 academics signed a letter to the FCC protesting Powell's refusal to allow an evaluation of the "research" he has talked of using to justify relaxing the media ownership rules. The national associations of Hispanic and black journalists called on the FCC to delay action until more study of threats to diversity could be completed. Leaders of the AFL-CIO, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the Consumer Federation of America and many other groups argued that Powell had not allowed enough time to analyze the potential damage to democracy.

.....




As long as corporatists control our government, this battle will not be resolved any time soon, much less for the good of the people.




The unimpeded Internet is crucial to the free flow of information. That is exactly why the corporatists want ultimate control over its content and speed; the people must not be allowed to have full access.


The people are a threat to their empire.









Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:18 PM
Response to Original message
20. Who can we call?!! What can we do?!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blogslut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
22. Make your voice heard
Comment here:

http://blog.broadband.gov/?entryId=509180

File a comment here:

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs /

Tell the FCC that you support the "Third Way" proposal that will define data transmission as a telecommunications service, thus giving the FCC the power to regulate it and enforce Net Neutrality.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
snot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-22-10 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
23. The 74 Dems who are selling us out?
Per this -- http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/74_dems/?r=5592 -- 74 Dems "sold us out," including:

Bobby Bright (AL-02),
Mike Ross (AR-04),
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01),
Ed Pastor (AZ-04),
Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8),
Dennis Cardoza (CA-18),
Jim Costa (CA-20),
Laura Richardson (CA-37),
Joe Baca (CA-43),
Loretta Sanchez (CA-47),
Allen Boyd (FL-02),
Corrine Brown (FL-03),
Alcee Hastings (FL-23),
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24),
Sanford D Bishop, Jr. (GA-02),
John Barrow (GA-12),
David Scott (GA-13),
Leonard Boswell (IA-03),
Wally Minnick (ID-01),
Bobby Rush (IL-01),
Debbie Halvorson (IL-11),
Baron P Hill (IN-09),
Dennis Moore (KS-03),
Charlie Melancon (LA-03),
Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD-01),
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2),
Elijah Cummings (MD-07),
Gary Peters (MI-9),
William Lacy Clay Jr (MO-01),
Russ Carnahan (MO-03),
Travis Childers (MS-01),
Bennie G Thompson (MS-02),
Gene Taylor (MS-04),
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01),
Heath Shuler (NC-11),
John Adler (NJ-3),
Albio Sires (NJ-13),
Harry Teague (NM-2),
Tim Bishop (NY-01),
Gregory Meeks (NY-06),
Joseph Crowley (NY-07),
Ed Towns (NY-10),
Yvette Clarke (NY-11),
Michael McMahon (NY-13),
Scott Murphy (NY-20),
Bill Owens (NY-23),
Michael Arcuri (NY-24),
Daniel Maffei (NY-25),
Steve Driehaus (OH-01),
Charlie Wilson (OH-06),
Marcia Fudge (OH-11),
Zachary T. Space (OH-18),
Dan Boren (OK-02),
Kurt Schrader (OR-05),
Robert Brady (PA-01),
Chaka Fattah (PA-02),
Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA-03),
Jason Altmire (PA-04),
Christopher Carney (PA-10),
Allyson Schwartz (PA-13),
Tim Holden (PA-17),
Lincoln Davis (TN-04),
John Tanner (TN-08),
Al Green (TX-09),
Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15),
Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20),
Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23),
Solomon Ortiz (TX-27),
Henry Cuellar (TX-28),
Gene Green (TX-29),
Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30),
Glenn Nye (VA-02),
Rick Larsen (WA-02),
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
datasuspect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 07:45 AM
Response to Original message
25. they have good food, laughter, and cordiality in these types of meetings
they eat better food than us and they get it for free.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Morbius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 07:52 AM
Response to Original message
26. A couple thoughts.
First, I do not like the whole closed-door meeting thing any better than anyone else. But the nature of closed-door meetings means we can only guess what's going on. We cannot "know."

Second, it is very much in character for this administration to attempt to broker a deal with those who stand to be most upset by a policy. This meeting doesn't mean net neutrality will go away. It may mean the opposite, as the Great Compromiser tries to find a way to keep all the big businesses happy and still keep his base happy. One result of this may be that nothing changes until after the election.

All I'm getting at is that while I don't care for closed-door meetings between government and entrenched wealth, the meeting itself is not reason to panic. It would be completely out of character for Obama not to hold such a meeting, whatever his policy is going to be.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sulphurdunn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
27. 666
The Mark of the Beast is a symbol for absolute imperial power, which is and always has been a demonic force in human affairs. :evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Drops_not_Dope Donating Member (362 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
28. Kicking
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Odin2005 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
29. KICK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jun-23-10 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
30. Thank goodness it's a Democratic President who is allowing this to happen.
If it were a Republican doing it I would be really PISSED that our government is being hijacked by corporate interests.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
32. Oh friggen' kick kickety kick kick. , ,infuriating. .n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jkid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
33. There should be any deals at all.
The FCC should just publish the Net Neutrality decisions and tell the industry to DEAL WITH IT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lunasun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-24-10 10:07 PM
Response to Original message
34. Well it has been nice while it lasted......
Too dangerous and to powerful a tool of the peasants world wide I assume for those who rule .
I do not count on anything that is on the web to be there tomorrow even.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Butch350 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
35. So...how does this affect the everyday web surfer?
Does this mean the corporate capo won't let me shop online at Amazon without a fee or something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
conspirator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 05:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
39. You would/will be able to visit Amazon and other big corporation sites for free
What you won't be able to do is have your own blog, with real news, educating articles, and criticism of the government policy, publicly available for anyone to search and visit.
Only the big corporations will have money to pay for the license to "broadcast".
Pretty much like it works in the other media: TV, radio, newspapers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Frisbee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 04:40 PM
Response to Original message
38. My guess is...
this will work out about as well as Prick Cheney's closed door meetings with the energy companies. In other words, sooner or later, we'll be getting screwed hard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-25-10 07:53 PM
Response to Original message
41. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu May 02nd 2024, 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC