Net Neutrality

916 bak

primary 12/17

SOPA/PIPA uprising a model? or ez slacktivism? why didn't smackdown make them too scared to try again? djt?

common cause 1 25

Padraic, I wish I was writing with better news. A federal court just overturned one of Common Cause’s biggest 2024 policy wins: net neutrality.

Net neutrality is the simple principle that companies like Verizon and Comcast should treat all web traffic equally – not pick and choose based on who is willing to pay more or who they like best. Big Tech companies obviously don’t like that – which is why they spent millions lobbying against it over the years.

Now, thesemegacorporations will be able to seize control back over our Internet. The likely result? Throttled access to streaming services, monopolistic pricing that cuts out competition, and a slower, walled off, and less free Internet for all of us.

And unfortunately, rulings like this will only get more common now that the Supreme Court has overturned the “Chevron deference” – giving judges, rather than qualified public servants, a blank check to toss out protections like net neutrality, environmental safeguards, or food safety standards.

3 23 Gigi scalp

We strongly urge you to reject Sohn’s nomination to the FCC and hold our regulators to the highest standard.

Sincerely,

Center for a Free Economy

Americans for Tax Reform

60 Plus Association

American Commitment

Center for Individual Freedom

Citizen Outreach

Conservatives for Property Rights

Consumer Action for a Strong Economy

Institute for Liberty

Less Government

Market Institute

Independent Women’s Voice

Eagle Forum

Affiliations listed for identification purposes only.

no twt lnx

https://www.alternet.org/2022/05/gigi-sohn/

'Infuriating': Telecom lobbyists spending big money to keep Gigi Sohn off FCC

Julia Conley and Common Dreams May 01, 2022

Consumer rights defenders are warning that telecom companies and lobbyists are taking advantage of the U.S. Senate's delay in confirming Gigi Sohn to the Federal Communications Commission by spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to pressure corporate Democrats to vote against the longtime public advocate.

"There's an unseemly amount of money being spent to promote disinformation about her," Greg Guice, director of government affairs for Public Knowledge, the group founded by Sohn, told MarketWatch this week. "These criticisms aren't based in fact whatsoever."

As Karl Bode wrote at Techdirt last week, former Democratic Sen. Heidi Heitkamp's rural-focused non-profit group recently launched a $250,000 social media ad campaign targeting at least two Democrats who have not yet confirmed how they plan to vote on Sohn's confirmation, even though it would give the party three of the five FCC seats for the first time in six years and would end the current deadlock.

The group's ads are aimed at Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), neither of whom have indicated how they will vote on Sohn's nomination and both of whom are facing reelection campaigns in November.Politico has reported that Heitkamp is also running ads in West Virginia, where right-wing Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin was "undecided" on Sohn after meeting her.

Heitkamp's group, the One Country Project, is claiming that Sohn has been insufficiently committed to improving broadband access in rural communities, pointing to congressional testimony in which she said Congress has been "disproportionately focused on broadband deployment in rural areas."

As Chris Matthews wrote at MarketWatch, Sohn's testimony didn't "argue that the federal government shouldn't fund broadband deployment, but that the main hurdle for Americans accessing broadband in both rural and urban areas is affordability, not infrastructure."

Heitkamp started One Country Project with "leftover campaign cash" to start her political action committee, Matthews noted, and counted AT&T and Comcast as two of her biggest donors when she was in the Senate.

"Telecom monopolies are now terrified that the Sohn appointment won't just break 2-2 commissioner gridlock (they created) at the agency, it will mean the restoration of meaningful federal oversight over one of the least popular and least competitive industries in the Internet ecosystem," wrote Bode at Techdirt.

Andrew Lokay, an analyst with independent policy research firm Beacon Policy Advisors, told MarketWatch that opponents of Sohn in the telecom industry appear to be "taking advantage of Biden's delay in nominating Sohn and the crowded Senate calendar in an attempt to sink her nomination."

Craig Aaron, president of media and technology advocacy group Free Press, accused the telecom industry and its allies of waging a "dishonest astroturf campaign" against Sohn and called the effort to derail the nomination of a strong net neutrality defender "infuriating."

In addition to One Country Project's efforts, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)—which has long partnered with AT&T—published an op-ed in the Arizona Daily Star earlier this month accusing Sohn of having a "deeply problematic track record on media diversity issues."

The group wrote that as a senior staffer at the FCC, Sohn "masterminded a plan to give Google a government permission slip to steal, repackage and monetize TV programming without paying one cent to its creators"—a move which angered "diverse creators" and lawmakers over "how her proposal would impact vulnerable, underrepresented communities."

In fact, Bode wrote, "the FCC's goal was to kill the cable box monopoly and save consumers about $20 billion annually in bullshit rental fees," adding that "framing it as a handout to 'big tech' is an intentional misrepresentation."

LULAC denied to MarketWatch that its opposition to Sohn has anything to do with its relationship with AT&T, and the company said it has not donated any money directly to One Country Project.

But as Bode argued, "Sohn's so popular, and the goals of telecom monopolies (less competition, more revenue, no oversight) are so viciously unpopular, they've been forced to fabricate flimsy complaints and funnel them through proxy organizations in a bid to derail the popular nomination."

"If Sohn's nomination is scuttled, it will come at the hands of Senators Joe Manchin, Catherine Cortez Masto, Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), or Mark Kelly, who will, not coincidentally, parrot the false justifications for opposing Sohn's nomination concocted by the telecom lobby," Bode added.

"It will leave a permanent and violent scar on the political and policy landscape," he added, "loudly advertising once again that the voice of the public (which overwhelmingly supports holding telecom and media giants meaningfully accountable) simply doesn't matter in our purported democracy."

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/montana-gop-lawmakers-made-fortunes-at-tech-giant-oracle-and-became-its-best-friends-in-dc

salon

montana Republicans Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Greg Gianforte share a tight financial and legislative history with each other and with the tech giant Oracle that goes back years. That relationship has netted each of them several million dollars and made Gianforte one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

Both have also used their offices to support legislation and other initiatives for which Oracle spent significant time and money lobbying, and from which the company stood to gain financially — including through defense contracts.

Additionally, both are up for election this year: Daines is running for re-election to the Senate, in a tight race with current Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, while Gianforte is trying to move from the House — where he serves as the state’s lone representative — to the governor’s mansion.

Gianforte made his fortune from RightNow Technologies, a Bozeman-based tech company he co-founded with his wife in 1997, where Daines served as an executive for 12 years. In 2011, Gianforte sold the company to Oracle for $1.5 billion, at the time holding between 20% and 25% of the company’s stock, which was valued at between $300 million and $400 million, according to statements he made to the Billings Gazette.

that sale sent 100 jobs to Texas, according to a report in the Missoulan, but Gianforte stayed, working in a consulting capacity until March 2013, per his LinkedIn page.

The sale went a long way toward making Gianforte the wealthiest member of Congress, a title he held until last year when he was displaced by appointed Sen. Kelly Loeffler, R-Ga., whose husband is CEO of the New York Stock Exchange

The Gianforte Family Trust holds more than $190 million in assets, as of its 2018 tax filing, and supports a number of ultra-conservative organizations and efforts, including helping to build a creationist museum in Glendive, Montana, that depicts humans coexisting with dinosaurs.

Daines reported that between 2011 and 2012, when he stepped away from the company to run for Senate, RightNow and Oracle paid him a combined $550,882 in salary. He also reported earning between $2 million and $10 million over those two years, according to disclosures.

Since 1998, Daines and Gianforte, through their company Genesis Partners, have shared a stake in a Bozeman office complex called Genesis Business Park, which rented space to RightNow and subsequently Oracle. The complex currently hosts an Oracle campus, which Gianforte told the Bozeman Daily Chronicle in 2015 had a 10-year lease, which is apparently set to expire next March.

Between 2015 dna 2018, Daines pulled in between $485,000 and $5.1 million per year in rent from the office park, and 2012 through 2014 earned between $100,001 and $1 million, according to his federal disclosure forms.

Gianforte reported earning between $50,000 and $100,000 from rent and capital gains through Genesis Partners, per his disclosures.

In fact, Daines officially filed his candidacy for Senate from the Oracle offices in Bozeman, which he had leased to the company. From the Missoula Independent:

Critics have since speculated that [Daines’] years at the company and the money netted by executives through the Oracle purchase were the springboard from which Daines launched his political career. In fact, according to a February 2014 article in the Billings Gazette, Daines officially filed his candidacy for the U.S. Senate from his iPhone while at the Bozeman offices of Oracle.

While in congress, Daines and Gianforte have pushed legislation that would benefit Oracle, including bills lobbied on by Oracle, federal reports show.

Daines introduced an amendment to a 2017 spending bill (SB 2943) that included spending to “ensure higher quality cybersecurity” for Department of Energy and Pentagon nuclear command and communication systems. Oracle had previously been awarded DOE contracts to do software work for the National Nuclear Security Administration, as well as DOD contracts for electronics and communications equipment.

Oracle reported that it lobbied on that bill for those specific issues, expending nearly $2 million on lobbying that quarter alone, government disclosures show.

The Montana legislative duo also supported billions of dollars in federal government procurement on which Oracle had lobbied.

Daines also voted to allocate billions of dollars for procurement as part of the fiscal 2016 and fiscal 2020 National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAAs), Gianforte effectively voted in favor of the 2017 and 2020 NDAAs, both of which Oracle lobbied on.

Specifically, Oracle lobbied on issues related to IT, cloud and cybersecurity procurement policies, spending nearly $2 million lobbying on both, according to disclosures.

Furthermore, Daines used committee markups in 2015 and 2016 to increase funding for cybersecurity measures by nearly $2 billion, while Oracle touted its cybersecurity work with the federal government — specifically the Pentagon.

Daines also worked to boost cybersecurity innovation in the private sector, introducing legislation to get cybersecurity interests a seat at the table of a Workforce Advisory Board.

Oracle, whose complete cloud services division took in about $27.4 billion per year, lobbied on “cloud computing issues” throughout Daines’ time in Congress.

Daines similarly supported millions of dollars in funding for artificial intelligence (AI) programs, which Oracle stood to benefit from substantially, as the company offered an array of products incorporating AI and machine learning.

Daines has routinely advocated for private sector advantages on those issues, while Oracle promoted its government collaborations and spent millions lobbying for spending increases, including nearly $2 million for AI.

Daines and Gianforte both supported rolling back net neutrality,which Oracle publicly supported — and though many tech companies share the same interests, Daines and Gianforte used their offices to oppose policies supported by Oracle competitors, most specifically Google.

One such measure was the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act, which held website operators liable for third-party content that promotes sex trafficking. According to the Verge, Oracle publicly supported that bill in an effort to harm their competitors, specifically Google:

Why Oracle would come out so publicly in favor of the bill is less obvious, since the law lacks even a tenuous connection to their business model. However the company’s animosity towards Google is well-documented, from its $9 billion lawsuit over Android, to Oracle’s funding of the Google Transparency Project, which put out a report earlier this year claiming that Google had bought academic influence through grants. In a bizarre way, Google has become the favorite target of those who support SESTA.

The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported in 2015 that Democratic Gov. Steve Bullock had met with Oracle competitors Google and Facebook ahead of his 2016 re-election bid, apparently in an effort to lure more tech competitors to Montana’s Northern Rocky tech apparatus. Bullock defeated Gianforte in that election, and is now running against Daines in one of the nation’s most closely-watched Senate races.

Daines once sent a letter to Google voicing concerns about their personal health information protection mechanisms, requesting the company provide information on the subject. Coincidentally, Oracle also criticized its chief rival’s data collection, and played a key role in launching an Australian government probe into Google over its collection practices.

In 2017, Daines called on Oracle CEO Safra Catz to join a tech jobs summit that he hosted.

Gianforte co-sponsored and voted in favor of an Oracle-backed immigration bill, the Fairness For High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019, on which Oracle lobbied, according to federal disclosures.

Gianforte also supported intelligence authorization legislation that Oracle lobbied on, voting in favor of an intelligence authorization act in 2018, 2019 and 2020, per Senate records.

In addition to the millions of dollars that Daines and Gianforte made from their business relationships with Oracle, including ongoing rent, the company has contributed financially to the two lawmakers’ election campaigns.

Daines for his part has taken over $56,000 in campaign contributions from Oracle over his career, making the company one of his top 10 contributors, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Oracle employees have contributed $10,700 to Gianforte over the course of his two congressional bids.

Daines currently appears to hold a lead over Bullock in this year’s Senate race, and President Trump is expected to easily carry Montana. But the state has a history of being politically unpredictable, and Democratic Sen. Jon Tester successfully held his seat in 2018.

Gianforte faces a tougher challenge against Democratic Lt. Gov. Mike Cooney, in a race currently rated as a “toss-up” in the RealClearPolitics average of polls.

Gianforte first won his House seat in a tight 2017 special election, after former Rep. Ryan Zinke joined Trump’s cabinet for his spectacularly scandal-studded stint as secretary of the Interior. On the eve of Gianforte’s election he made worldwide headlines for body-slamming Guardian reporter Ben Jacobs, and was convicted of assault in Montana state court the next month (after winning the election). The judge handed down a fine and sentenced the representative-elect to community service and anger management therapy.

As a result of the terms of the settlement, Gianforte gave the Committee to Protect Journalists $50,000, about 1/4,000 of his total estimated net worth.

320 bb

Ajit Pai promised that killing net neutrality would spur network investment, but instead Comcast cut spending by 10.5%

When Trump FCC Chairman Ajit Pai used fraud and skullduggery to kill net neutrality, he promised that clearing away the allegedly burdensome regulation of delivering the data your customers request would finally spur investment in America's worst-of-bread, ancient network infrastructure. Read the rest

https://boingboing.net/2019/11/22/save-dot-org.html

Civil society groups protest the sale of .ORG to a private equity fund and a collection of Republican billionaires

11/19

Earlier this month, management of the .org top-level domain underwent a radical shift: first, ICANN dropped price-caps on .org domains, and then the Internet Societ (ISOC) flogged the registry off to Ethos Capital, a private equity fund, and a consortium of three families of Republican billionaires: the Perots, the Romneys, and the Johnsons. Read the rest

http://www.teletruth.org/FTCspeakercorporateties.htm

The FTC Conference on Net Neutrality and Broadband and Corporate Influence.

During February2007 the FTC held a meeting titled: "Broadband Connectivity, Competition Policy”

http://www.ftc.gov/opp/workshops/broadband/index.html

This resulted in a report which quoted the work of many of the speakers. In going through the speaker list, it is clear that many of the speakers had ties to Verizon or AT&T. (This list was created simply going to Google and typing in the name and "Verizon" or "AT&T"... not exhaustive.) We are in no way implying any wrongdoing on the part of any person or organization, or that these presenters are not respected experts and scholars.

However, we are concerned that:

a) The “FTC Bios” listed for these speakers (see above link) did not include their ties to AT&T or Verizon, the corporations they are discoursing about and who are former and current clients.

b) The FTC may not checked the backgrounds of the speakers and required them to indentify their corporate relationships. This weighted the analysis in favor of the corporate position as opposed to the public interest position.

c) Both the FTC and the Department of Justice have quoted the experts' data without discussing the influence of their funding sources, many of whom are paid as 'experts' by AT&T or Verizon et al.

d) Many of these experts are also part of New Millennium Research Council or Progress & Freedom Foundation's projects, which are also funded by the phone and cable companies. Did these groups help to influence these discussions?

We are not the only group to notice that the positions of the Department of Justice or the Federal Trade Commission on Net Neutrality relies heavily on experts funded by the phone and cable companies. Free Press has filed a FOIA to "uncover whether industry lobbyists or White House politics unduly influenced a recent Justice Department filing against Net Neutrality — the longstanding principle that prevents phone and cable companies from discriminating against Web sites and services." http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=271

PARTIAL LIST OF SPEAKERS: Broadband Connectivity, Competition Policy

* George S. Ford

Chief Economist Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies.
The Phoenix Center hides its funding sources, but a number of different organizatons claim that the group is funded by the phone companies.
See the cable companies' Phoney Baloney: http://www.phoneybaloney.net/PC.htm
Other mentions of funding sources:
“Spiwak said the Phoenix Center is funded by ‘the old AT&T, the new AT&T, wireless companies, software providers’ and other Bell competitors.” [Technology Daily, 7/26/06]
“In a telephone interview last week, Lawrence Spiwak, president of the Phoenix Center, acknowledged receiving funding from AT&T and Verizon Communications.” [Television Week, “Cable Group: Telcos Paying for Support,” 2/27/06]

*Alfred E. Kahn

Robert Julius Thorne Professor of Political Economy, Emeritus, at Cornell University and special consultant to National Economic Research Associates (NERA). a Bell funded group)
Testifies on behalf of Verizon, SBC, Qwest in multiple states, such as New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:APTm00h71aQJ:www.wutc.wa.gov/rms2.nsf/0/CB77BA
F6B87B52B088256E830074A999/%24file/UT-023003%2BExhibit%2BTJT-2%2BVerizon%2B042704.pdf+Alfred+E.+Kahn+Verizon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

* William Lehr

“Testimony of William Lehr, Ph.D.---On Behalf Of AT&T… In addition, I comment on the trigger case for mass market switching presented on behalf of Verizon.
www.ripuc.org/eventsactions/docket/3550-ATT-Lehr(2.25.04).pdf

* Thomas M. Lenard

Senior Fellow and Senior Vice President for Research The Progress & Freedom Foundation http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html

* Timothy J. Muris

Professor George Mason University Schoolof Law.
Verizon is a “partner” with George Mason University School of Public Policy’s Executive Education Partnering Organization, one of the only corporations on the list and also built the 300 seat- state of the art, Verizon Auditorium.

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:cDJeXVuStu0J:policy.gmu.edu/programs/

List_of_Partners.pdf+George+Mason+University+Foundation+Verizon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

* Gregory L. Rosston

Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research

Part of the Progress and Freedom Foundation, The Digital Age Communications Act Project group. His FTC bio omits his telco clients.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:R0ibHjiXLDwJ:siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/0519.pdf
+Gregory+L.+Rosston+Stanford+Institute+for+Economic+Policy+Research+consulted
+with+AT%26T&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

Footnote: “I have consulted for AT&T, MCI, Pacific Bell, Verizon, various CLECs, and internet-based companies.”

* Gregory Sidak

Visiting Professor Georgetown University Law Center; Founder of Criterion Economics http://www.criterioneconomics.com/who/
Clients include: AT&T, Bell Canada, BellSouth, CTIA-The Wireless Association, Qwest Communications, SBC, Verizon, Verizon Wireless,

* Scott Wallsten

Senior Fellow and Director, Communications Policy StudiesThe Progress & Freedom Foundationhttp://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html

* Hands off the Internet, Christopher Wolf.

Christopher Wolf, Co-Chairman Hands off the Internet
Sourcewatch info http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hands_Off_the_Internet

Others:

* Walter B. McCormick, Jr., President & CEO United States Telecom Association, The telephone company association and lobbying group.

* Michael Altschul, Senior Vice President and General Counsel CTIA - The Wireless Association, AT&T and Verizon are the 2 largest wireless providers.

* John Thorne, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, Verizon Communications

* Daniel Brenner, Senior Vice President, Law and Regulatory Policy National Cable & Telecommunications Association.

* Joseph W. Waz, Jr, External Affairs and Public Policy Counsel, Comcast

how House Democrats plan to take on Trump's FCC — and its decision to axe net neutrality

By Matthew Chapman, AlterNet

The FCC lied to the public amid their commissioner's crusade to kill net neutrality rules. House Democrats plan to get answers. READ MORE»

If you clicked this story, or have any desire to listen to the interview embedded within, odds are you’re a consumer of independent media. Yet even as you’re reading these words, your ability to do so in a timely manner is in grave jeopardy.

Since the repeal in June of Obama-era rules guaranteeing net neutrality, websites like Truthdig, Democracy Now!, Common Dreams and more risk being pushed into an internet slow lane that could severely hamper their readership, if not drive them out of business entirely. For Jeff Cohen, editor and co-founder of the media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), it may be the most urgent threat to the First Amendment no one is talking about.

“The biggest issue of freedom of the press is not that Trump is mean to reporters, as he was last week with CNN’s Jim Acosta and Yamiche Alcindor of “PBS NewsHour,” he tells Robert Scheer. “The biggest freedom-of-the-press issue is that Trump is working with Comcast and AT&T and Verizon to end net neutrality. … Ownership of the media and the ownership of the internet, the fact that these big internet providers are [a] few giant companies that also produce content—it’s very, very dangerous.”

In the latest installment of “Scheer Intelligence,” Cohen plumbs a range of topics, including the myriad failures of our political press and the Blue Wave election that wasn’t (quite), as well as the future of the progressive movement. No matter how many congressional seats it ends up flipping, he contends, the Democratic Party is unlikely to change course until it replaces its leadership: “It’s too indebted to the donor class. So they talk with mush in their mouths. ‘We should have more accessibility to affordable housing’—no! What’s popular is ‘Medicare for all.’ ”

Cohen also expounds on the larger mission of FAIR and the kind of counterweight it can provide to an increasingly monolithic media industry. “We set up FAIR because progressive points of view were excluded from mainstream media,” he says. “Typically in mainstream media … the spectrum went from the center to the right. So I spent decades trying to get the progressive view there.”

Between the Federalist Society’s iron grip on the Supreme Court and the ever-encroaching dangers of global warming, the future—both for the country and the planet as a whole—looks impossibly bleak. Yet even in these dark, frenetic times, Cohen maintains we still have reason for optimism. “I study the polls,” he says. “And the polls show that the most progressive demographic, by age, by far, are people under 30, under 35. They’re the most anti-racist demographic, they’re the most tax-the-rich demographic, [and] they’re the most we-better-do-something-about-climate-change demographic.”

Listen to Cohen’s interview with Scheer or read a transcript of their conversation below:

Robert Scheer:Hi, this is Robert Scheer with another edition of Scheer Intelligence, where I hasten to add the intelligence comes from my guests. In this case, it’s Jeff Cohen. I think I most recently had seen you in action at the Democratic Convention in Philadelphia, and you were organizing sort of a grassroots activity. Of course I’ve known you for years, you—way back in the 1980s you started a group called FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, one of the major media watchdog organizations. And then more recently, in 2011, you organized RootsAction.org, and this very effective million and a half people who can push for progressive things. But the reason I wanted to talk to you is, I’m interviewing you the day after the midterm election, here at USC at the Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. We had a lot of activity at the school, a lot of screens going all last night. Then everyone woke up this morning and not quite sure—there certainly wasn’t the blue wave, but there was blue impact; you get the House. And as I say, when I last saw you, it was a much more optimistic moment, in some sense, for progressives, but the tide was turning within the Democratic Party. And so take me back to the Philadelphia convention, and were you a Bernieite?

...

weiner CA bill, jerry signs last minute

https://www.ecowatch.com/net-neutrality-verizon-california-firefighters-2598114540.html

Fire Chief: Verizon Throttled Data Speed, Endangering Firefighting Efforts

A Northern California fire chief said in a court filing (pdf) Monday that during its efforts in battling the Mendocino Complex Fire—the largest in state history—that one of the department's trucks, equipped with Verizon wireless service, had its connection speeds significantly slowed and made communication effectively impossible.

"This throttling has had a significant impact on our ability to provide emergency services. Verizon imposed these limitations despite being informed that throttling was actively impeding County Fire's ability to provide crisis-response and essential emergency services," Santa Clara County Fire Chief Anthony Bowden wrote in a declaration, first reported by Ars Technica on Tuesday.

The fire department paid Verizon for an "unlimited" data plan but suffered heavy throttling after it surpassed its monthly data allowance of 25GB.

"Data rates had been reduced to 1/200, or less, than the previous speeds," Bowden wrote, noting that without full-speed service on the communications rig, "resources could be deployed to the wrong fire, the wrong part of a fire, or fail to be deployed at all. Even small delays in response translate into devastating effect, including loss of property, and, in some cases, loss of life."

The fire chief's claims were added to a lawsuit filed this week by attorneys general from 22 states and the District of Columbia seeking to reverse the Federal Communication Commission's repeal of net neutrality.

"The Internet has become an essential tool in providing fire and emergency response, particularly for events like large fires which require the rapid deployment and organization of thousands of personnel and hundreds of fire engines, aircraft, and bulldozers," he noted.

In a series of email exchanges between Verizon and County Fire that were included in the filing, the company confirmed the throttling but told the department they would have to switch to a $99.99 a month data plan, more than twice the cost the department had been paying. County Fire eventually upgraded to the more expensive plan.

Bowden claimed Verizon throttled data during previous fires. "It is likely that Verizon will continue to use the exigent nature of public safety emergencies and catastrophic events to coerce public agencies into higher-cost plans, ultimately paying significantly more for mission-critical service—even if that means risking harm to public safety during negotiations," he wrote.

More than 3,500 firefighters are still battling the Mendocino Complex Fire, which is made of the River and Ranch blazes. The fires have burned 406,532 acres as of Tuesday.

After the Ars Technica article was posted, Verizon admitted to the error but said in a statement, "This situation has nothing to do with net neutrality or the current proceeding in court."

The statement continued:

"We made a mistake in how we communicated with our customer about the terms of its plan. Like all customers, fire departments choose service plans that are best for them. This customer purchased a government contract plan for a high-speed wireless data allotment at a set monthly cost. Under this plan, users get an unlimited amount of data but speeds are reduced when they exceed their allotment until the next billing cycle. Regardless of the plan emergency responders choose, we have a practice to remove data speed restrictions when contacted in emergency situations. We have done that many times, including for emergency personnel responding to these tragic fires. In this situation, we should have lifted the speed restriction when our customer reached out to us. This was a customer support mistake. We are reviewing the situation and will fix any issues going forward."

RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB

https://readsludge.com/2018/08/09/telecom-funded-groups-ask-congress-to-oppose-the-net-neutrality-cra-on-behalf-of-conservatives-everywhere

Nearly three dozen conservative nonprofits and think tanks sent a letter to members of the House of Representatives on Monday, urging them to reject a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution that would overturn the Federal Communications Commission’s recent order killing net neutrality rules.

Democrats in the House of Representatives are attempting to force a vote on the net neutrality CRA by securing signatures from a majority of House members on a discharge petition that would pull the bill out of committee and bring it to the floor. But to succeed they need support from dozens of Republicans.

The letter from the conservative coalition comes as momentum appears to be building for the Democrats.Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) recently became the first Republican to sign their discharge petition. A survey conducted by Republican pollster Bryan Sanders was released earlier this week showing that opposition to net neutrality could hurt Republicans in key House battleground districts this November. The poll found that opposition to net neutrality could be a significant factor tipping the scale towards Democratic candidates for a majority of undecided voters in the districts where the poll was conducted.

“On behalf of conservatives everywhere, please speak out against the CRA and the re-imposition of devastating digital regulations,” the groups wrote in their letter to Congress.

Despite claiming to speak for all conservatives, the letter comes from a particular subset of groups on the right—those that have received funding from the telecommunications industry.

According to a Sludge analysis, at least 29 of the 34 groups that signed the letter have received grants from telecom industry lobbying groups or are funded by organizations that receive substantial telecom industry support.

Since most of the groups signing the letter are set up as nonprofits, they are not required to disclose the identities of their donors. Since they are not primarily focused on lobbying politicians or running political campaigns, they don’t have to file financial information with the Federal Elections Commission or lobbying disclosures with Congress. But a review of 990 tax forms filed at the Internal Revenue Service by grant-giving organizations, as well as other documents, a portion of their funding can be traced.

The letter is hosted by—and appears to be organized by—a nonprofit organization known as the Taxpayers Protection Alliance (TPA). Sludge previously reported about TPA’s telecom industry ties in May when they were running geo-targeted ads on social media to convince people to call their members of Congress and ask them to oppose the net neutrality CRA, a practice they appear to have recently restarted.

TPA, a self-described non-partisan public education group, has received funding from both of the telecom industry’s main trade groups—NCTA (the Internet and Television Association) and CTIA ( the Wireless Association) by way of a subsidiary called MyWireless that appears to do most of their grant-giving, according to tax records. From 2012 to 2016, the most recent year for which tax records are available, the two trade groups have given at least $110,000 to TPA.

NCTA and CTIA are funded by and represent all of the major telecommunications and cable companies that are fighting against net neutrality rules in the U.S., including Comcast, Verizon and AT&T.Although the companies lobby the government themselves, they typically rely on trade groups to provide funding to think tanks and other nonprofits that support them on issues.

Here’s a list of some of the groups that have signed the letter and how much money they have taken from the telecom industry:

The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI), a think tank founded by former Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey that says its mission is to “research, develop and promote innovative and non-partisan solutions to today’s public policy problems.” From 2010 to 2015, IPI received $263,000 in general support funding from NCTA and MyWireless (CTIA), according to tax documents reviewed by Sludge. In 2008, Armey worked as a lobbyist for Verizon, among other clients.
The American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Researchsigned the letter against the CRA despite the fact that without net neutrality internet service providers are can engage in throttling and paid prioritization deals that could lead to slower and more expensive internet access. According to tax documents, the group has received $25,000 per year from MyWireless from 2010 to 2015, and in 2016 that amount was increased to $30,000.
The Hispanic Leadership Fund signed the letter despite many groups representing minorities arguing that the lack of net neutrality rules will disproportionately harm communities of color. The Hispanic Leadership Fund is a member of Broadband for America, an anti-net neutrality coalition that received $2 million a year in general support funds from NCTA from 2010 to 2014, tax records show.
Another consumer group, Consumer Action, broke with the majority of organizations representing consumers to sign the anti-CRA letter. According to tax documents reviewed by Sludge, they received $10,000 per year from MyWireless (CTIA) from 2012 to 2015, and their donor pagefrom 2008-2009 (the most recent information available on their website) lists AT&T and Verizon as benefactors, but does not provide details on the amount of money they companies have given them.
The State Policy Network is an umbrella organization and grant maker for conservative think tanks across the country, more than a dozen of which signed the anti-CRA letter. According to a document obtained and described by the Center for Media and Democracy, as of 2010 their funders included AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable. Tax records show that they group also received annual support from NCTA for their tech policy working group from 2012 to 2015. Organizations funded by the State Policy Network that signed the letter include the Goldwater Institute, John Locke Foundation, Montana Policy Institute, Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, Alaska Policy Forum, and several more.
Americans for Tax Reform also signed the letter. They are best known for their ties to prominent conservative figures like founder Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers, but they also have financial ties to the telecom industry. The NCTA gave them $50,000 per year for general support from 2011 to 2015 according to tax records. The CTIA (via MyWireless) chipped in another $165,000 from 2010-2016. They are also a member of the State Policy Network.
The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) signed the letter through their 501(c)(4) affiliate ALEC Action. ALEC is well known for their work with corporations and interest groups on crafting model legislation for state legislatures, and among those corporate partners are major net neutrality opponents like AT&T, Comcast, Charter, and Verizon. ALEC has also received at least $10,000 from MyWireless, tax records show.

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/internet-defenders-say-net-neutrality-isnt-yet-dead-most-important-battle-begins

https://www.alternet.org/local-peace-economy/how-cities-are-guaranteeing-net-neutrality-creating-their-own-broadband-systems

Fort Collins, Colorado is planning to build its own internet service utility, trumping the Federal Communications Commission’s move last month to extinguish net neutrality.

Fort Collins joins a growing list of cities opting in to their own internet, and opting out of big telecom, much to the disdain of giants like Comcast. All told, big telecom and anti-net neutrality agencies spent nearly a million dollars trying to defeat the Fort Collins move.

In contrast, according to Christopher Mitchell, director of Community Broadband Networks at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, concerned citizens of Fort Collins organized on social media and coordinated “broadband and brews” events at local beer hot spots, spending a total of about $15,000.

Telecom spent an “unprecedented amount of money,” Mitchell says, “but the voters were not scared by the cable and telephone companies. The reason that’s important for the rest of the country is that local government needs to be more aggressive in creating local internet choice.”

Early this year, the Fort Collins City Council voted 7-0 to move forward with a broadband plan, in light of a strong message voters sent when they approved ballot measure 2B in support of a municipal internet utility by nearly 60%. Citizens had previously opted the town out of a 2005 law (promoted by telecom companies), prohibiting municipalities from building their own broadband networks. However, the law gives citizens the right to opt out, and that’s exactly what Fort Collins and nearly 100 other municipalities in Colorado have done.

In rural communities nationwide, where there are smaller towns and greater distance between towns, cooperatives are installing high-speed broadband, often through local co-op electric companies, says Mitchell. For example, most of North Dakota has fiber in the home. Mitchell says people in western North Dakota have faster internet than most of the people in San Francisco, where big telecom rules.

“When people tell you you can’t have fiber in rural areas, it’s because they have no idea what they are talking about,” Mitchell adds, pointing out nearly half of the U.S.—geographically—gets electricity from co-ops. However, that’s only about 2% of the U.S. population.

“What that means is rural America has a better hope for broadband than urban America, because co-ops are building it,” he says.

Fort Collins’s $150 million plan should see broadband citywide completed within three to four years.

Nationwide, there are 95 municipal broadband networks similar to the Fort Collins plan that might encompass surrounding areas, such as in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

“The thing about Fort Collins that is exciting is the organizing,” Mitchell says, stressing they only raised “about $15,000 and took down professional PR people to build a municipal network. To me that suggests there is hope anywhere—where people want to organize around this issue, they have a good chance of success.”

According to the city’s official website, “Fort Collins is committed to the principles of Net Neutrality….The City Broadband Plan does not call for any restrictions on access including uploads, downloads, delivery methods or providers (email, Skype, Netflix, etc.) … Net Neutrality, or Open Internet, means there are no restrictions of any kind on access to content on the Web, no limit on downloads and uploads, or no restrictions on delivery methods or providers. The key principle is access to the internet is not blocked, slowed down, or sped up depending on who or where that access occurs. In essence, Net Neutrality means the internet is open to everyone.”

As Fort Collins implements a plan to ensure that to its citizens, other cities nationwide are implementing and exploring their own options, too.

Comcast, Verizon, AT&T winning fight against restoring net neutrality

Anyone doubting the power lobbyists still hold in Washington need only look at the ongoing, shameful net neutrality travesty.

It was bad enough that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai, a former Verizon lawyer, engineered the repeal of President Obama’s landmark rules prohibiting Internet Service Providers from blocking or slowing down the internet or giving preference for certain online content.

Now Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee wants to lock the vast majority of Pai’s rules into law through her proposed legislation with the Orwellian title: the Open Internet Preservation Act.

The Verizon, AT& T and Comcast Dream Act would be more appropriate.

Unlike Pai’s new rules, Blackburn’s bill would prevent ISPs from blocking access to websites. That’s good news. But Blackburn would put into law the FCC chairman’s approval to allow ISPs to charge content providers on websites a premium for faster speeds. The legislation would devastate small businesses and startups from being able to compete, throttling creativity and innovation. It would also rake in billions for the ISPs who have poured more than $600 million into their lobbying efforts over the last 20 years.

Blackburn has been one of their prime beneficiaries, receiving more than $500,000 from telecom companies since she took office in 2002, including $84,000 in the most recent election cycle, the biggest contribution to any member of the House of Representatives.

Don’t expect Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or Republicans in the Senate to stand up for consumers in a heist that will net Verizon, AT& T and Comcast billions. Telecom companies gave Mc-Connell a cool $250,000 in the last election cycle.

Blackburn also went out of her way to block any notion of blue states writing their own net neutrality laws. Her bill would pre-empt states from passing “any law, rule, regulation, duty, requirement, standard or other provision” related to net neutrality.

The Tennessee Republican was well aware that in California only days after the FCC vote, state Sen. Scott Wiener of San Francisco announced that he would introduce a net neutrality bill when the Legislature reconvenes in January. Wiener later indicated that he would join forces with New York state Sen. Brad Hoylman of Manhattan to write legislation that would restore net neutrality to both states. Democrats in Congress are hoping that a small number of Senate Republicans who in the past have expressed some support for net neutrality may find the courage to oppose Blackburn’s bill if it reaches the Senate floor, as expected.

It will take a major show of outrage by consumers and the tech industry to help make the case. They can start by citing a recent survey by the University of Maryland showing that 80 percent of Americans — including 75 percent of Republicans — oppose the notion of repealing net neutrality regulations.

The only alternative is to hope the courts strike down Pai and Blackburn’s efforts — or that enough Democrats win seats in 2018 to start their own cycle of congressional “repeal and replace”.

Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee wants to lock most of the new rules into law through her proposed legislation with the Orwellian title: the Open Internet Preservation Act. The Verizon, AT& T and Comcast Dream Act would be more appropriate.

omg

...Now comes the Republican campaign to justify the killing of net neutrality by the FCC. Rep. Marsh Blackburn (R-Tenn.) has introduced legislation that allegedly “aims to ultimately end the heated debate around so-called 'net neutrality' regulations.”

As Breitbart News explained in its “exclusive interview” with Blackburn:

The FCC’s Obama-era net neutrality regulations controlled the Internet as a public monopoly, which conservatives argued diminished the freedom of the Internet and led to rampant censorship of conservative and alternative voices by content providers such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter.

The notion of “net neutrality” as a thwarted liberal conspiracy doesn’t have anything to do with Mueller and bears little relation to reality. But it nicely corroborates the master narrative that Trump is protecting the country from demonic liberals, from Silicon Valley to Washington, who won’t let America be America.

...

On television news, net neutrality dies in silence

Trump's FCC voted this week to end net neutrality. This could have sweeping consequences and end the internet as we know it. The move will allow telecoms to control the internet, undermine the infrastructure of every website, and disproportionately hurt those not big enough to stand up to them. While pro-Trump media cheered on this consolidation of corporate power, television networks ignored the story for the most part, even though it was clearly possible to cover it in a compelling way.

12/12/17

At least 28 Senators are calling for the vote to be delayed after reports revealed that over 80 percent of the 22 million public comments sent into the FCC about this issue were fake comments sent by bots, almost entirely in favor of killing net neutrality. But the vote needs to be stopped entirely, and our representatives must do everything in their power to stop it.

Polling has shown that a clear majority of Americans support net neutrality, and upon further review, it now looks like 95 percent of legitimate comments submitted to the FCC supported keeping net neutrality.

Despite an ongoing investigation into the fake comments, Trump’s FCC chair, Ajit Pai, still plans to hold the vote this Thursday. It’s another example of this administration ignoring the will of the People and rushing full steam ahead to enact their corrupt, right-wing, corporate agenda while under a cloud of suspicion about the dirty tactics used by its supporters.

https://www.alternet.org/activism/fcc-end-net-neutrality-threaten-online-activism

2010 bs pr

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Center for Individual Freedom ("CFIF") today unveiled a national grassroots campaign to rally conservatives in opposition to the Obama Administration's efforts to impose onerous "Net Neutrality" rules on the Internet. The 'Stop Net Regulation' campaign, launched during the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., encourages Americans to get active online through a national petition and by contacting their elected officials.

The campaign features prominent conservatives from CFIF and other organizations, and utilizes a network of social media outlets to educate consumers on the significant harms to economic growth and jobs if federal regulators implement Net Neutrality.

"The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration seeks over the Internet is both unnecessary and dangerous," said Timothy Lee, CFIF's VP of Legal and Public Affairs. "The type of Net Neutrality regulations the administration seeks to impose on the Internet threaten to cut off tens of billions of dollars in private investment annually, and will cost our struggling economy good-paying American jobs at a time when we can least afford it."

"Consumers are benefiting from rapid and ever-increasing Internet-based innovation," said CFIF President Jeffrey Mazzella. "The Obama Administration's proposed Net Neutrality rules threaten to grind that innovation to a screeching halt."

Economic studies released last month show Net Neutrality regulations will dramatically impact job growth and economic recovery efforts and will lead to significant decreases in private investment by Internet companies.

"'Stop Net Regulation' will serve as the hub for the growing movement of conservatives across the country opposed to the federal government regulating the Internet," Mazzella said. "Hundreds of thousands of American jobs depend on private investment by Internet companies and these new regulations stand directly in the way of the nation's economic recovery."

For more information, visit www.StopNetRegulation.org.

Founded in 1998, the Center for Individual Freedom is a constitutional and free market advocacy organization with hundreds of thousands of activists and supporters nationwide.

www.CFIF.org

SOURCE Center for Individual Freedom

4 million public comments, FCC says will look at quality not quantity?

John Oliver spearheads resistance

trump

https://www.democracynow.org/2017/5/19/headlines/fcc_vote_advances_bid_to_end_net_neutrality

in Washington, the FCC voted 2-1 Thursday, along party lines, to begin a process to replace net neutrality rules that were adopted in 2015 to keep the internet open and prevent corporate service providers from blocking access to websites, slowing down content or providing paid fast lanes for internet service. In response, Free Press President Craig Aaron warned the proposal would take away the rights of internet users, saying, "The federal courts rejected this kind of approach twice when the FCC tried it before."

Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna, a congressman in his first term representing California’s 17th district, is quick to denounce President Trump. But he also doesn’t mince words about Trump’s FCC chairman, Ajit Pai.

“I think he’s one of the worst picks possible in government,” Khanna said of Pai on the latest episode of Recode Decode, in discussion with Recode’s Kara Swisher and Tony Romm. “Did you see the Charter decision? It’s appalling.”

The “Charter decision” refers to a recent unanimous FCC vote ruling that Charter Communications would not have to expand high-speed internet access into areas already covered by competitors like Comcast. (Disclosure: Comcast subsidiary NBCUniversal is an investor in Vox Media, which owns Recode).

“I don’t know as much about technology as some of the people I represent, but I know this: We invented the internet, we invented a lot of broadband,” Khanna said. “Why are we paying five times more than people in Europe? The reason is, it’s basically a monopoly here.”

“[Pai] is carving up the map, no competition,” he added. “And the people who suffer the most are — actually — Trump voters, in rural America! They’re the ones whose prices go up. They’re the ones who have to think, ‘Do I subscribe to the internet or not? Do I get fast service?’ He has been a mouthpiece for telecom companies in one of the most economically concentrated industries in the country.”

3/15 1.6 mil robo emails to FCC on net neutraoty

http://www.amazon.com/Lies-Incorporated-World-Post-Truth-Politics/dp/0307279596

===

http://billmoyers.com/story/twenty-years-of-media-consolidation-has-not-been-good-for-our-democracy/

Wall Street’s sinister influence on the political process has, rightly, been a major topic during this presidential campaign. But history has taught us that the role that the media industry plays in Washington poses a comparable threat to our democracy. Yet this is a topic rarely discussed by the dominant media, or on the campaign trail.

The negative impact of the law cannot be overstated. The law, which was the first major reform of telecommunications policy since 1934, according to media scholar Robert McChesney, “is widely considered to be one of the three or four most important federal laws of this generation.” The act dramatically reduced important Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations on cross ownership, and allowed giant corporations to buy up thousands of media outlets across the country, increasing their monopoly on the flow of information in the United States and around the world.But now is a good time to discuss our growing media crises. Twenty years ago last month, President Bill Clinton theTelecommunications Act of 1996. The act, signed into law on February 8, 1996, was “essentially bought and paid for by corporate media lobbies,” as Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) described it, and radically “opened the floodgates on mergers.”

“Never have so many been held incommunicado by so few,” said Eduardo Galeano, the Latin-American journalist, in response to the act.

Twenty years later the devastating impact of the legislation is undeniable: About 90 percent of the country’s major media companies are owned by six corporations. Bill Clinton’s legacy in empowering the consolidation of corporate media is right up there with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and welfare reform, as being among the most tragic and destructive policies of his administration.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is not merely a regrettable part of history. It serves as a stern warning about what is at stake in the future. In a media world that is going through a massive transformation, media companies have dramaticallyincreased efforts to wield influence in Washington, with a massive lobbying presence and a steady dose of campaign donations to politicians in both parties — with the goal of allowing more consolidation, and privatizing and commodifying the internet.

This issue has not been central in the 2016 presidential election. But it is deeply concerning that, of all the presidential candidates running in 2016, the Big Media lobby has chosen to back Hillary Clinton. Media industry giants have donated way more to her than any other candidate in the race, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics. In light of this, we must be mindful of the media reform challenges we face in the present, as we try to prevent the type of damage to our democracy that was caused by the passing of this unfortunate law.

A Threat to Democracy: The Telecommunications Act and Media Consolidation

:{When President Bill Clinton }:{ into law, he did so}:{. The bill, which was lobbied for in great numbers by the }:communications and media industry:{, was sadly a }::{bipartisan misadventure — only 3 percent of Congress voted against the bill: five senators and 16 members of the House, including then-Rep. Bernie Sanders.}:

At the time, President Clinton as “truly revolutionary legislation … that really embodies what we ought to be about as a country.” House Speaker Newt Gingrichprojected consumer savings and private job growth. Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan for the bill that would “make this country the best served, the best educated and the most successful country … in all areas of communications.”

Despite all of these glowing words, the consequences of the bill were disastrous. The act “fueled a consolidation so profound that even insiders are surprised by its magnitude,” said one trade publication, according to Robert McChesney, in his book,Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times.

“Before the ink was even dry on the 1996 Act,” wrote S. Derek Turner, research director of Free Press, in a 2009 :{report proposing a:(style="background-color:#ffffff;"):}::{national broadband strategy:(style="background-color:#ffff66;"):}:, “the powerful media and telecommunications giants and their army of overpaid lobbyists went straight to work obstructing and undermining the competition the new law was intended to create.”

Media consolidation was already an extremely pressing concern long before 1996. In 1983, Ben Bagdikian published his groundbreaking book, The Media Monopoly, which revealed that just 50 corporations owned 90 percent of the media. That number gradually dwindled over the coming 13 years and was accelerated by the Telecommunications Act. This has led us to the aforementioned crisis where more than 90 percent of the media is owned by just six companies: Viacom, News Corporation, Comcast, CBS, Time Warner and Disney.

Radio has seen an equally appalling consolidation, which has been horrendous for both news media and music. In 1995, before the Telecommunications Act was passed, companies were not allowed to own more than 40 radio stations. “Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Clear Channel [now called iHeartMedia]has grown from 40 stations to 1,240 stations — 30 times more than congressional regulation previously allowed,” according to a report from the Future of Music Coalition.

Local newspapers, too, have been stung by these deregulations. Gannett, for instance, owns more than 1,000 newspapers and 600 print periodicals. Layoffs havebeen the norm for the company, including at USA Today, the paper with the largest circulation in the country, where layoffs were described as a “total bloodbath” in the American Journalism Review.

Save the Internet: The Next Big Media Battle

There was a lot at stake when media companies lobbied for reform in 1996. There is just as much at stake today in the battle for a free and open press. Not only have big media companies continued to push for more consolidation and mergers, but they are also seeking to commodify and privatize the internet. This has become a major concern for advocates of“net neutrality,” who want to “save the internet,” and ensure it is protected as a public utility with equal access for everybody. An FCC ruling in February 2015 has protected the internet for now, but as Free Press warns, the internet is still “in danger.”

“Net neutrality has made the internet an unrivaled space for free speech, civic participation, innovation and opportunity. Net neutrality prohibits online discrimination and gives any individual, organization or company the same chance to share their ideas and find an audience,” explains Free Press’s website, Save the Internet. “Companies like Comcast and Verizon aren’t used to losing in Washington, and they’ll do everything they can to knock down the Title II protections the FCC approved on Feb. 26, 2015.”

The organization is right to be concerned. One reason for the passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as McChesney wrote in 1997, was the sheer power that the media and communications industry has in Washington. “Both the Democratic and Republican parties have strong ties to the large communication firms and industries, and the communication lobbies are among the most feared, respected and well-endowed of all that seek favors on Capitol Hill.”

Today that power and influence has only increased. “From 2002-2008, the industry increased its spending on lobbying efforts every year,” reports the Center for Responsive Politics. “The streak snapped when the Great Recession set in and most clients cut back on their DC efforts, and then reversed again in 2013. In 2014,cable and satellite providers spent nearly $8.1 [million] on lobbying.”

Big Media’s Relationship With Hillary Clinton

What is most revealing when analyzing the donation patterns of these industries in the data from the Center for Responsive Politics — be it cable television, print and periodicals, radio or telecom services — is that Hillary Clinton is, by far, the largest recipient of donations of any candidate in the 2016 election in either party. In fact, of all the top industries that have donated to Clinton, the TV/movies/music category ranks behind only the securities and investments category. (This data is from reports filed on January 31, 2016, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.)

More troubling is that these filings come on the heels of a report from *Politico* that the Clinton Foundation has received donations, some of them very large, from most of all the major media companies directly: Viacom, News Corporation, Reuters, NBCUniversal, Newsmax, Time Warner, Mort Zuckerman (owner of US News &World Report and the New York Daily News), Comcast, AOL Huffington Post Media and Robert Allbritton (owner ofPolitico). George Stephanopoulos, one of ABC News’ most visible journalist and a former staffer for President Clinton, has also been under scrutiny for not disclosing a $75,000 donation to the foundation.

Of course, the Clinton Foundation is not a political campaign and does some philanthropic work. So while this all might be legal, it is extremely unsettling, especially in tandem with all the campaign donations Hillary Clinton has received from the major players in this industry.

In March 2015, for instance, a Comcast executive held a $50,000 per plate fundraiser for Clinton’s super PAC.“Comcast NBCUniversal operates in 39 states and has 130,000 employees across the country,” said company spokeswoman Sena Fitzmaurice at the time. “It is important for our customers, our employees and our shareholders that we participate in the political process.”

Of course, media companies don’t just donate to Clinton, but also to members ofCongressfrom both parties. Further, as the Center for Responsive Politics reports, the FCC is filled with “revolving-door” employees, who have been switching back and forth between government work and lobbying for Comcast.

Their aggressiveness in Washington makes them a dangerous enemy in the fight for free and democratic media. In this environment, it should come as no surprise that the position ofFCC chairman is typically held by a former lobbyist for the cable industry, such as Tom Wheeler, the current chairman, who was once president of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a major opponent of net neutrality.

And while it is good news that Clinton has come out in favor of net neutrality, it is a reasonable fear that she could change her views once elected, especially given her relationship with Big Media. It would not be the first time a president has changed a view after being elected, as we learned when Barack Obama embraced a mandate in health care, or when George H.W. Bush raised taxes, despite histhat he never would.

It is important to note that, whatever her relationship with the telecommunications industry, it is not fair to blame Hillary Clinton for the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As first lady, Clinton was not in charge of telecommunications policy and there doesn’t appear to be evidence she played a role in constructing or fighting for the law in the White House. In fact, 20 years later, it is difficult to find any public statements from Hillary Clinton expressing her opinion about the law or its impacts. She di at the 2012 YearlyKos convention about the Telecommunications Act. Her response, however, did little to clarify her views on the subject. She said:

You’ll have to ask [then-Vice President] Al Gore. We’ve had a lot of media consolidation. We’ve had some good competition. We have a lot that we need to do to begin to create a more competitive framework. Al was very involved in designing and pushing that through — he is an expert; I am not … We’ve got to take a hard look at this and I don’t want to say something I may not really support. So I have to look at that proposal.

Clinton is now, however, deep into a presidential run and could well be responsible for appointing the head of the FCC. She owes it to voters to describe her views on the Telecommunications Act, and on media consolidation more broadly, in a way that goes beyond advising Americans to “go ask Al Gore.”

Why Media Reform Matters

When McChesney observed that the communications lobby was “among the most feared, respected and well-endowed of all” groups in Washington, he also pointed out one of the great challenges about trying to fight Big Media.

“[The] only grounds for political independence in this case,” he wrote about the debate over the Telecommunications Act, “would be if there were an informed and mobilized citizenry ready to do battle for alternative policies. But where would citizens get informed?”

This catch-22 is indeed one of the great difficulties about fighting for a vibrant media and a healthy democracy. But it is a challenge advocates of free media must embrace. Supporting independent media is one important way to help bring light to issues the corporate media ignores.In other words, how can we have a real debate about media issues, when we depend on that very media to provide a platform for this debate? It is no surprise, for instance, that the media largely ignored the impact of Citizens Unitedafter the Supreme Court decision helped media companies generate record profits due to a new mass of political ads. “Super PACs may be bad for America, but they’re very good for CBS,” said CBS president Les Moonves, in a rare moment of candor at an entertainment conference in 2012.

Media reform is the issue that affects all other issues. As the impact of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has shown, democracy suffers when almost all media in the nation is owned by massive conglomerates. In this reality, no issue the left cares about — the environment, criminal legal reform or health care — will get a fair shake in the national debate.

TOPICS: MEDIA

TAGS: BILL CLINTON, FCC, HILLARY CLINTON, MEDIA CRITICISM, NET NEUTRALITY, SUPER PACS,TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT

oddly, heritage worries about ICANN?

http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/18/u-s-must-ensure-internet-remains-free/

FCC hangs tough tho head is fmr lobbyist

telecom exec in public says reg harms investment, in pvt says opposite (verizon?)

BO pushes back on ban on munic wireless 2/15

Leahy And Matsui Propose Bill To Block Internet ‘Fast Lanes’

Posted By Josh Evans On 12:08 PM 06/17/2014 In | No Comments

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy and California Rep. Doris Matsui intend to unveil a new bill that would require the Federal Communications Commission to do everything in its power to prevent the creation of Internet fast lanes, The Washington Post reports.

If the new law is passed, the FCC will be forced to prohibit Internet service providers (ISPs) from speeding up certain types of Internet traffic at the cost of other types. Advocates of the legislation argue that such practices harm content providers, particularly small start-ups, by forcing them to pay additional fees to ISPs in order to make their content accessible to consumers.

“Our country cannot afford ‘pay-for-play’ schemes that divide our Internet into tiers based on who has the deepest pockets,” Matsui said.

The bill does not grant the FCC any new powers, however, which may be problematic, as the agency has frequently struggled in the past with justifying its regulatory efforts on the Internet before the federal courts.

In order to conform to the bill’s requirements, Tom Wheeler, the agency’s chairman, may be forced to reclassify the Internet as a common carrier service. This act would be highly politically controversial move but would give the FCC greater authority to regulate the Internet as it does telephone lines.

Last month, the FCC voted to approve new net neutrality rules that would allow ISPs to create Internet fast lanes. (RELATED: FCC Votes For New ‘Net Neutrality’ Internet Regulations)

Content providers such as Netflix and Google have strongly opposed the creation of fast lanes, while ISPs such as Verizon and Comcast have defended them. Most recently,Verizon has made the argument that prohibiting fast lanes will prevent blind, deaf and disabled customers from accessing the special services that they need.

*Follow Josh on Twitter*

Article printed from TheDaily Caller: http://dailycaller.com

URL to article: http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/17/leahy-and-matsui-propose-bill-to-block-internet-fast-lanes/

http://www.wired.com/2014/06/democrats-bill/