God control

By Capt. Fogg

I've said quite a bit about gun control; pretty much all I'm going to say, actually. There is something far more pernicious, more dangerous and more in need of control however and that's God. It's hard to deny, although that doesn't prevent most people from denying it, God has been on the wrong side of things as often as the right side: slavery, conquest, persecutions, genocide. You name it, God has been the universal justification as often as the universal opponent.

So it isn't surprising that God now seems to be against Net Neutrality. Sure he is -- and our founding fathers who don't seem to have believed in the kind of god who gets involved in such matters as free markets thought so too. That's the thing about God's likes and dislikes and mysterious plans: people just make them up as they go along.

Take David Barton, for instance, allegedly one of the country's most influential Evangelicals. He thinks that government should stay out of the lives of selected people and should, in the name of freedom and less intrusive government, regulate the most private and personal consensual sexual behavior. That's nothing new, of course, but it may surprise you that according to the Gospel as invented by Barton, God hates net neutrality and wants the internet dominated by the powerful and rich. God and the Puritans brought us prosperity because we're not socialists. The rest of the world got their prosperity from the Devil apparently and Jesus was just joking about rich men and heaven. How can we question that?

God wills it -- just like God willed the Crusades and the extermination of European Jews: just like he willed the divine right of kings and the right of the Church to approve their power. He demanded a secular Democracy in the Colonies, some of them, while simultaneously mandating the power of George III, Rex Dei Gratia.

Face it, it's long since been far out of hand and the will of god has become indistinguishable from the background noise of commerce. Did God have an interest in boosting tobacco sales. He obviously, if we're to believe this radio troll, has an interest in the rights of corporations which exceeds his concern for the poor. Does God like free markets, or does he like kings? Does the Bible speak against Net Neutrality or call it Socialism. Does God hate Socialism or does he like you to share everything you have with the poor and sick? Depends on whom you ask and of course I won't be asking the Religious Right, which I can't tell from the Religious Wrong of late.

One thing our constitution does uphold, is the free exercise of religion, so lunatics and tyrants and even evil men like Barton get to rave on unmolested. The government can't really exercise God control and more than God can control the evil spewed out by Barton's forked tongue. It's up to me and you to be aware that whether or not it was God, Guns and Guts that made America "great" those things will serve any master with equal ferocity. Mention God and nobody can shut you up, nobody can really contradict you and millions will follow you through the gates of hell, raging and bellowing, cheering and jeering like the lost souls we are.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Freedom vs. corporate authoritarianism: The FCC and net neutrality, Apple and WikiLeaks

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As we move into an ever more virtual, digital world, there can be no genuine freedom without net neutrality. But it has to be all-out net neutrality, not limited net neutrality that gives ISPs, our corporate overlords, the ability to restrict our access to content.

The FCC -- with three Democrats and two Republicans -- voted yesterday "to approve its first ever Internet access regulation," as The Washington Post reports. The new rule "ensures unimpeded access to any legal Web content for home Internet users." 

But not really.

While the regulation is certainly a step in the right direction (one that Republicans oppose and are doing everything they can to block, so beholden are they to our corporate overlords and so opposed are they to genuine free speech, and access to free speech), and while President Obama claims it "will help preserve the free and open nature of the Internet while encouraging innovation, protecting consumer choice, and defending free speech," it only goes so far -- and not nearly far enough.

Two of the FCC's Democratic members agree but essentially had to vote for "weak rules or no rules at all." Wherein lies the problem? Where does the regulation fall short?

The agency's two Republican members voted against the rules, showing support for Internet service providers who say the regulations will impede their ability to create new business plans to expand their broadband networks and boost speed.

[FCC Chairman Julius] Genachowski said the measure represents a compromise between industry and consumer interests.

"I reject both extremes in favor of a strong and sensible framework -- one that protects Internet freedom and openness and promotes robust innovation and investment," Genachowski said.

The same provisions do not apply as strongly to cellphone users because the agency voted to keep wireless networks generally free of rules preventing the blocking and slowing of Web traffic.

The Republican argument is both dishonest and nonsensical. Republicans want ISPs to make as much money as possible while controlling access to content -- that is, bluntly, to allow ISPs to restrict accessible content to corporate-approved content; that is, to Republican-friendly content.

Genachowski's argument is somewhat defensible, though as the deciding vote he didn't have to appease the Republicans -- it's not like they voted for this supposed compromise, after all. A more robust regulation could have passed 3-2 as well.

The problem is that this supposedly "strong and sensible framework" has a gaping hole in it -- namely, Internet access through mobile devices and wireless networks. Under the regulation, you'll be able to access what you want at home, through your ISP, but not necessarily on the go on your iPhone, BlackBerry, or other portable device. So how does the new rule protect freedom and openness?

Here's how Sen. Al Franken put it on Monday:

As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly level playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability to find an audience as a media conglomerate...

For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications, and devices on mobile Internet connections.

Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).

I'm not sure if the new rule is "worse than nothing," but Franken goes on to address its other problems and makes a persuasive case.

Yes, it's still a step in the right direction, I think, but, given Republicans' objections to net neutrality altogether, shouldn't Democrats push for all-out net neutrality instead of promoting compromises, as Obama himself is doing, that give ISPs much of what they want? Why isn't the choice between net neutrality or no net neutrality instead of between some net neutrality or no net neutrality?

Once again, this looks like Democrats caving in to Republican demands and allowing the range of options to be shifted to the right.

And, politically, this should be a winnable issue for Democrats, who can make the case, as Franken does, that this is about access to content generally, not just to left-wing, pro-Democratic content. Conservatives are very much in bed with our corporate overlords, which are generally on the Republican right, but who's to say that non-neutrality wouldn't result in restrictions on access to right-wing content as well?

Isn't freedom non-partisan? Can't Democrats make the case that you're either for freedom or for corporate authoritarianism?

**********

Case in point:

As The New York Times reports, Apple has removed a WikiLeaks app from iTunes, claiming that the app "violated [its] developer guidelines." "Apps must comply with all local laws and may not put an individual or group in harm's way," said an Apple spokesperson. (The app was unofficial, not formally endorsed by WikiLeaks.)

As The Guardian notes, "this is all part of the momentum behind the campaign to silence Wikileaks, and ultimately to extradite Julian Assange."

Whether you approve of WikiLeaks or not, though, the issue isn't WikiLeaks, or Assange, but full access to content that governments and ISPs might not like. I don't support white supremacism, but I support access to white supremacist content, however despicable I may find it. And, while the truth-revealers at WikiLeaks are the current targets of governments and corporations, I'm sure you can find an extraordinary amount of white supremacist and neo-Nazi content on the Internet. The point is to keep it all free. That's net neutrality.

No one says you have to like all the content you can find on the Internet. You're free not to like it, just as you should be free to access it.

Of course, Apple's point is about illegality. An app promoting child pornography, for example, should never be allowed. Some content, obviously, is illegal.

But WikiLeaks and child pornography are two very different things. As Sean Paul Kelley puts it at The Agonist, "Wikileaks has broken no laws that the New York Times hasn't broken. The Pentagon and Biden and The State Department have all said no one has died as a result of the leaks. But it has embarrassed our leaders."

So is this really about illegality? Or is it not rather about a major corporation (once thought to be a radical one, contra Microsoft) blocking access to legitimate content?

Kelley adds: "Free speech will not be regulated by the Federal Government. The Bill Of Rights guarantees it won't. But there is nothing in the constitution to stop corporations from regulating speech. This is exactly what is going to happen. Most people get their internet from wireless devices these days, so expect more and more rigid firewalls."

There's the problem.

And it doesn't help that Democrats aren't fighting for all-out net neutrality and that the president of the United States, once thought to be a progressive, backs such corporate-friendly compromises. (Yes, Republicans are fighting this with a vengeance, but they should actually be very happy about the FCC's regulation. It's change they should be able to believe in.) 

I'll give the FCC a single cheer, maybe a cheer and a half. But with Republicans frothing at the mouth, it'll take much more from Democrats to make net neutrality a reality.

In this case, compromise in the name of limited freedom is a terrible vice.

Net Neutrality and you

By Capt. Fogg

If you're reading this, you most likely have an interest in the future of the Internet and concern with the ownership thereof. Most of us assume it belongs to us, the way we once assumed the ' air waves' belonged to us -- just like the air itself. The electromagnetic spectrum now largely belongs to those who make a profit from it and the Internet may well follow suit. The phone and cable companies would certainly like to regulate what you may or may not get on line and how fast you get it as well as how much you'll have to pay.

What's at stake for them is the ability to sell you "premium" services over dedicated networks and to be able to "prioritize" or discriminate between traffic that takes up bandwidth and traffic they can make a buck on. Of course it's much more complex than this, but the outcome of FCC deliberations on Net Neutrality may very well have a huge effect on the flow of information and our assumption that everyone has a right to hear and be heard without interference; without corporate censorship.

Of course the ability of the FCC to do anything at all is in question following recent court decisions that seem to be part of the crusade against regulating anything and everything and without such an agency to provide a system of rules to protect a media that's fast replacing print and broadcast as our portal to the world, what you know, what you are able to know may well be determined by what makes the most money or most suits the interests of service providers. Indeed we've already traveled quite a distance down that path.

The FCC is now open to public comment. You can be sure that Verizon and Google, inter alia, are speaking very loudly and carrying a very big stick so if there's going to be any slim chance for the public to weigh in on Net Neutrality, your chance to be heard is now.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Internet neutrality and the Courts

By Capt. Fogg

Marconi was still a young man when the need for government control of communications became all too obvious. Newsmen using the new wireless telegraph began to jam each others' transmissions accidentally and on purpose and battles were fought over frequency allocations. Someone had to step in with some rules to allow the technology to develop, to prevent it being used as a weapon in restraint of free trade and to make sure that those using the public airwaves would use it without disregard for the public interest.

I can almost hear throats clearing at those last two words, almost see lips forming words like collectivism, socialism, Communism, but without it, the guy with the most money has the podium and the guy who owns all the podiums: press, broadcast and now the Internet, might just as well be the government with all that power. The difference between a fair trial and murder; between a Hockey game and a viking raid (if there is a difference) is the rules, so save your breath. I don't want to hear it.

The FCC was formed for these reasons, but during the last administration, it's been almost exclusively concerned with promoting the interests of power companies who want to use the power lines to get into the Internet business, and sometimes to the serious harm of other users of the frequency spectrum. Whether or not this has changed under the Communist/Fascist Antichrist from Kenya seems to matter less than the current posture of the courts. The District of Columbia Federal Appeals Court decided yesterday in favor of Comcast and against the authority of the FCC in it's attempt to mandate "net neutrality."

The new administration has been in favor of equal treatment for all Internet users; in favor of a policy that would prevent Comcast, for instance from slowing down and restricting the content they don't like and making content they approve of faster and cheaper. Yes, yes, I know all about free market competition, but I'm talking about the real world here and that's a world where corporations collude rather than compete. It's a world where a small group can control information to the point where no one can compete successfully. As I said, the difference between boxing and assault and battery or even murder is the rules.

It's too soon to make scary assertions about how this will work out, but as restrictions on how much of all media outlets can be owned by one person, real or corporate have been loosened along with restrictions on how much information they can restrict in their own interest, it looks to me like we're once again shooting ourselves in the foot, slow motion style. Our obsessive fantasy of a 'no holds barred' marketplace leading to peace and order, prosperity and a well informed electorate is, along with our phobic horror of phrases like "public interest" may be making corporate demagoguery a more valid vision of the future.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Internet Freedom Act and Net Neutrality

By Capt. Fogg

No, no, no. The Internet Freedom Act isn't about freedom for you as an internet user and you should know by now that when a Republican uses the word Freedom it's about corporate control over your options. John McCain's "freedom act" appears now, after we've just begun to recover from eight years of the Bush FCC acting as a wholly owned subsidiary of big communications corporations; fudging the science and ignoring its own rules with impunity. Under Michael Powell and Kevin Martin, the Commission has stifled, hidden and falsified studies concerning the adverse effects on the public airwaves and even disaster relief services, of using power lines as a conductor for broadband internet and has made censorship of "indecency" a prime directive. It's high time they were prevented from protecting the public interest rather than the power of the telecommunications industry and the religious right.

If McCain's legislation is passed, the Internet Service Providers will have the power to limit your web bandwidth and mine and give preference to - you guessed it - the people they like, the people they own and the people who say what they want said. Have a blog that criticizes Comcast? Back to the days of 300 baud for you old chap! Fox News can blaze along at any speed they like with all the streaming and screaming video and Glennbeckery they can produce and the FCC won't be able to represent you. The freedom of giant corporations and puritanical moralists to censor you -- that's the kind of freedom John McCain thinks is worth fighting for!

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Net neutrality? Yes we can!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I must admit, I've been a bit concerned about the direction Obama's taken since the election -- what with his support for Lieberman and the possibility that Gates will remain at the Pentagon -- but this is certainly a good sign of what we might expect from the Obama presidency:

The Obama-Biden transition team on Friday named two long-time net neutrality advocates to head up its Federal Communications Commission Review team.

Susan Crawford, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, and Kevin Werbach, a former FCC staffer, organizer of the annual tech conference Supernova, and a Wharton professor, will lead the Obama-Biden transition team's review of the FCC.

Both are highly-regarded outside-the-Beltway experts in telecom policy, and they've both been pretty harsh critics of the Bush administration's telecom policies in the past year.

Their jobs will be to review the agency and arm the president, vice president and prospective agency leader with all the information needed to make key decisions as they prepare to take over.

The choice of the duo strongly signals an entirely different approach to the incumbent-friendly telecom policymaking that's characterized most of the past eight-years at the FCC.

I've long been a proponent of "net neutrality" -- and these two appointments suggest that Obama will depart from Bush's right-wing, corporatist approach to telecommunications in general and Internet content in particular.

Which would certainly be a victory for individual liberty and American democracy.