FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Save Net Neutrality

by

News reports are circulating that the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) plans to introduce new rules to end net neutrality.   According to the New York Times, “the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.”

The FCC currently adheres to what is known as the “Open Internet rules,” an extension of the analog-era 1934 Communications Act.  It requires all Internet Service Providers (ISPs) — like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T – to maintain “net neutrality” standards, thus treating all data equally and barring them from slowing down or blocking websites.

The FCC actions come as a result of a critical federal court decision, Verizon v. FCC, decided earlier this year.  The DC circuit court found that the Open Internet rules were inappropriate established by a Bush-era FCC decision shifting it’s classification from the old “common carrier” model used for POTS (plain-old-telephone-service) to an “information service” not subject to the Communications Act.

The FCC’s proposed new rules will be formally voted on May 15th.  Under the rules, the FCC will permit the leading ISPs to introduce a new priority pricing mechanism creating, in effect, a two-tier online distribution network.  “Broadband providers would be required to offer a baseline level of service to their subscribers, along with the ability to enter into individual negotiations with content providers,” the FCC announced. “In all instances, broadband providers would need to act in a commercially reasonable manner subject to review on a case-by-case basis.”  What is “a commercially reasonable manner”?

These new rules shift the Internet from an open system where all data travels at the same rate to a pay-to-play system favoring preferential treatment for the giant content providers like Netflix or Google’s YouTube.  Apparently, the new rules will continue to prohibit blocking or discriminating against online content.  Had the new rules been adopted a decade ago, its anyone’s guess whether Netflix or YouTube would be viable companies today.

The FCC’s likely actions to end net neutrality is a result of a systemic campaign to privatization of the Internet and further the monopolistic efforts of the giant telecom and media companies.  Over this period, both Republican (e.g., Michael Powell) and Democratic (e.g., Julius Genachowski) commissioners of the FCC have been water-carriers for corporate interests; the one major exception was former commissioner Michael Copps.

Tom Wheeler’s appointment as FCC chairman in November 2013 is emblematic of this process.  He served as head of the National Cable Television Association (NCTA) from 1979 and 1984; Bush-era chairman, Powell, now heads the trade group. Wheeler previously ran the Cellular Telecom and Internet Association (CTIA) from 1992 through 2004.  Before his current appointment, he was managing director at Core Capital Partners, a venture-capital firm, and was a longtime Obama fundraiser.

Over the last decade-plus, there’s been an increasingly close relationship between the FCC and its corporate clients – to the detriment of the public. This was most graphically displayed in 2011 when Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker, shortly following her approval of Comcast’s acquisition of NBC Universal, took a well-paying position with the cable giant.

The FCC’s revolving door is evident in the career paths of the three most recent chairmen. Kevin Martin, a Bush-II appointee, is now with Patton Boggs, a leading Washington, DC, law firm and lobbyist. Powell, Gen. Powell’s son who now heads the NCTA; and William Kennard, also appointed by Clinton, previously an executive with the banking firm, Carlyle Group, now serves as the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union.  And Obama’s former chairman, Genachowski?; he’s now with the Carlyle Group.

“The FCC is inviting ISPs to pick winners and losers online,” Michael Weinberg, vice president at Public Knowledge, a Washington-based consumer-advocacy group, said in a statement. “This is not Net neutrality. This standard allows ISPs to impose a new price of entry for innovation on the Internet.”

The “simple” solution to the likely end to net neutrality is to reclassify the Internet as a common carrier service.  But “simple” is never simple, especially for the Obama administration where rhetoric has replaced reality as the mark of its “progressive” commitments.  While FCC Chairman Wheeler and the White House will moan and groan the fate of net neutrality, they will do little to really address the underlying problem.  The end of net neutrality is at hand.

David Rosen can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net.

David Rosen is the author of Sex, Sin & Subversion:  The Transformation of 1950s New York’s Forbidden into America’s New Normal (Skyhorse, 2015).  He can be reached at drosennyc@verizon.net; check out www.DavidRosenWrites.com.

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

zen economics

April 24, 2017
Mike Whitney
Is Mad Dog Planning to Invade East Syria?    
John Steppling
Puritan Jackals
Robert Hunziker
America’s Tale of Two Cities, Redux
David Jaffe
The Republican Party and the ‘Lunatic Right’
John Davis
No Tomorrow or Fashion-Forward
Patrick Cockburn
Treating Mental Health Patients as Criminals
Jack Dresser
An Accelerating Palestine Rights Movement Faces Uncertain Direction
George Wuerthner
Diet for a Warming Planet
Lawrence Wittner
Why Is There So Little Popular Protest Against Today’s Threats of Nuclear War?
Colin Todhunter
From Earth Day to the Monsanto Tribunal, Capitalism on Trial
Paul Bentley
Teacher’s Out in Front
Franklin Lamb
A Post-Christian Middle East With or Without ISIS?
Kevin Martin
We Just Paid our Taxes — are They Making the U.S. and the World Safer?
Erik Mears
Education Reformers Lowered Teachers’ Salaries, While Promising to Raise Them
Binoy Kampmark
Fleeing the Ratpac: James Packer, Gambling and Hollywood
Weekend Edition
April 21, 2017
Friday - Sunday
Diana Johnstone
The Main Issue in the French Presidential Election: National Sovereignty
Paul Street
Donald Trump: Ruling Class President
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Dude, Where’s My War?
Andrew Levine
If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Join ‘Em
Paul Atwood
Why Does North Korea Want Nukes?
Robert Hunziker
Trump and Global Warming Destroy Rivers
Vijay Prashad
Turkey, After the Referendum
Binoy Kampmark
Trump, the DOJ and Julian Assange
CJ Hopkins
The President Formerly Known as Hitler
Steve Reyna
Replacing Lady Liberty: Trump and the American Way
Lucy Steigerwald
Stop Suggesting Mandatory National Service as a Fix for America’s Problems
Robert Fisk
It is Not Just Assad Who is “Responsible” for the Rise of ISIS
John Laforge
“Strike Two” Against Canadian Radioactive Waste Dumpsite Proposal
Norman Solomon
The Democratic Party’s Anti-Bernie Elites Have a Huge Stake in Blaming Russia
Andrew Stewart
Can We Finally Get Over Bernie Sanders?
Susan Babbitt
Don’t Raise Liberalism From the Dead (If It is Dead, Which It’s Not)
Uri Avnery
Palestine’s Nelson Mandela
Fred Nagel
It’s “Deep State” Time Again
John Feffer
The Hunger President
Stephen Cooper
Nothing is Fair About Alabama’s “Fair Justice Act”
Jack Swallow
Why Science Should Be Political
Chuck Collins
Congrats, Graduates! Here’s Your Diploma and Debt
Aidan O'Brien
While God Blesses America, Prometheus Protects Syria, Russia and North Korea 
Patrick Hiller
Get Real About Preventing War
David Rosen
Fiction, Fake News and Trump’s Sexual Politics
Evan Jones
Macron of France: Chauncey Gardiner for President!
David Macaray
Adventures in Labor Contract Language
Ron Jacobs
The Music Never Stopped
Kim Scipes
Black Subjugation in America
Sean Stinson
MOAB: More Obama and Bush
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail