It’s one thing to read about the massive lobbying power that industries have. It’s in the news every day. There are stories about how much money the big pharmaceutical companies are spending, and certainly there are tales about the heavy pressure the health insurance lobby is bringing during the current health care debate.
It’s all minor league compared to the telephone industry. Read on and you will get a first-hand look at the power of a real major league lobbying organization. It’s not only the money and influence they generate in Washington, although they certainly do that.. So do many other special interest groups, like big pharma and insurance. The power of the telephone lobby lies in the power and influence they generate outside of Washington.
Telephone company representatives are in every Congressional district. They are in or around most communities. They are the ones who buy the tables at the Chamber of Commerce dinners, and the uniforms for the Little League. They support community organizations and know everyone in the Rotary Club. And when it comes time that the friendly AT&T or Verizon managers need a little favor from a local business person or public official, say to send a letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about a proposal that could harm that favorite local company, well the people are happy to oblige. That was the basis of the unprecedented barrage that spooked the FCC in the weeks leading up to the Commission’s October 22 meeting at which the Commission voted to approve proposed rules on a non-discriminatory Internet, which included letters from chambers of commerce, public officials, local businesses, retirees, among others. What other lobby could get the Graham Transfer and Storage Company of Meridian, MS, to send a letter opposing Net Neutrality as an example of a small business?
AT&T said that it would be a mistake to assume all the people sending in letters are uninformed, and that they are concerned about jobs and the economy. The local people need to be filled in on the issue.
One of those who sent a letter was Howell Moss, the mayor of Marion County, TN. Moss wrote the FCC, warning that Net Neutrality could jeopardize investment and innovation in these “dangerous economic times.” In an interview, Moss said that the local AT&T representative explained to him that under Net Neutrality, “they would not be treated fairly in Internet and broadband.” Moss said that he was told Net Neutrality would “prevent AT&T from providing us with services” and would “not allow them to compete.” AT&T asked him to write a letter on the company’s behalf, Moss said, and he did. AT&T (the former BellSouth) “has done a lot of favors in this county,” Moss said.
Moss’s letter looks a lot like many others, like this one from Sock Enterprises of Biloxi, MS. The owner, Karen Sock, said she had a close friend who works with AT&T and who learned about Net Neutrality at a local Gulf Coast Business Council meeting.
AT&T wants to make sure that their letter writers get the message right, so the company representatives provided form letters and talking points, like this one aimed at minority communities.
Those are just a couple of similar letters. Here are a couple more of the many in the docket:
Mississippi State Senator Joey Fillingane;
The Greenwood-Leflore County Chamber of Commerce;
The mayor of Coffee County, TN.
Still, there is the question of how Net Neutrality could affect the residents of Marion County or Biloxi. Would a small business owner in either of those places want to reach their customers easily online, or would they prefer to be shoved aside in a non-neutral network in which the big companies pay extra for transmission to put aside the little guys.
That’s a good question, one you should ask. A little while ago, we promised you an up close and personal look at the power of local lobbying. Here’s how you do it, and what you can do.
Go to FCC.gov. Click on “search” on the Commission task bar at the top of the page.
Scroll down to the sixth link on the page: Search for Filed Comments - ECFS
Click the first link – “search for filings.”
In the first box, “proceeding” type in 07-52
Scroll to the end of the page and click the “search for comments” box
When the list comes up, go to the “view” box in the upper right part of the screen and change the format to “expand.”
Don’t be daunted by all of the documents. You don’t want them all.
Scroll down and see who filed. Marvel at the volume and variety. Then pick a couple that look interesting to you – maybe they are from a legislator or other public official in your state. Maybe they are from an affinity group or other that claims to represent you. Get in touch with the person who filed the letter (or group which filed) and ask them – Why did your company/group file this letter? Why are you against playing fair with Internet users? How can that fairness possibly hurt investment or cost jobs? Then tell them you want a neutral Internet. Let’s not do that with private citizens who filed comments, please, unless you know them personally.
One last step. Go back to the Comments home page. Go to the express “submit a filing” link.
Click on the “click here” link fill in 09-191 and tell the FCC why we need an open Internet. (That’s the new docket number for Net Neutrality.)
Let your voice be heard.
Free Speech for Sale at Chump Change Prices
It’s one thing to buy off Congress with millions of dollars. It’s understandable how that much money can buy votes.
It’s quite another thing to buy off individuals as ordinary consumers who are willing to give up their free speech for a few cheap bribes and pep talks riddled with lies, for which they’re too lazy to educate themselves.
It’s no wonder Americans are the laughingstock of other countries who’ve had higher bandwidth speeds and access rates at half the price for years.
If net neutrality fails, free speech won’t be the only victim. It’s essential to economic recovery. The financial corporate sharks brought down the economy, and their counterparts in telecommunications are trying to take over the content market of broadband with similar results.
WE NEED PROCTECTION, I SUPPORT the FCC!
I SUPPORT “NET NEUTRALITY!” These Idiotic Republican do not know nothing about the internet. the Internet has grown so much that it now needs some set of rules in order too “PROTECT” its consumers(You and ME) From ISP’s limiting access to some of its customers. Jon McCain is an IDIOT. The REPUBLICANS have to STOP Misleading the Crowd with their “non-patriotic” meaning of words, It will not work again after what we seen with Bush. Republicans use words which MISLEAD the people. ———-Republicans>They know they can galvanise people with the repetition of phrases like “the war on terror” and then get away with whatever they wish. Do Not Fall for this FAKE TALK of False Meanings. Internet Freedom act is BS! Obviously he wants teh Companies to continue what they wewr doing before and “Discriminate” against services for Example VIOP, Torrents, High Bandwidth, Higher costs, Costs raised to people who live in isolated areas!!!!! IT IS NOT FAIR WE ARE IN NEED OF NET NEUTRALITY!!! Vote against these Acts by the Republicans. I Congratulate the FCC, Hopefully they can get it through.
This a Good quote that pretty much sums up what needs to be done
My conservative fellows, hear me out please before you start arguing against net neutrality.
The internet was created by the government.
Let that sink in for a minute. The internet as we know it today is a spinoff from DARPA projects during the cold war to control nuclear silos. So to all you people who hate the government touching stuff well, give up your use of the internet to show how much you hate government involvement.
Additionally PLEASE go do some research on net neutrality. ISPs like ATT, Verizon, and Comcast want to SLOW DOWN your internet and make you PAY MORE for faster service. Additionally they want to discriminate against certain websites. Imagine if foxnews.com only loaded if you paid additional money to your ISP each month. But NPR.org and msnbc.com loaded without any fees. That is what the ISPs want to “tier” websites and charge for some of them.
I’ll make an analogy. Imagine you’re sitting in traffic in an 8 lane highway. You’re in the middle lane and moving 20mph. You had to pay $5 to use this lane. The people on the left of you are traveling at 50mph. They had to pay $20 to use the road. The people on your right are traveling at 5mph and only paid $1.
This is what your internet will become unless you FORCE the ISPs to treat ALL highway lanes the same. You should be FOR net neutrality it’s a win win for us. Why are you lobbying for the interests of giant corporations? They don’t give a crap about you and would take you to the cleaners if they could. I hope I made an impression on some of you. Please stop arguing against this.
Astroturfing Google's campaign to regulate the Internet
It’s ironic that Public Knowledge would condemn AT&T for asking its supporters to write the FCC when PK’s fellow lobbyists for Google — Free Press — did more than this. It set up a Web form which crammed thousands of identical, boilerplate comments into the FCC’s docket 07-52. No thought or insight required — just a push of a button and another piece of spam clogs the record.
But of course, I am sure that this spamming is OK with PK,even though it was done from an essentially fraudulent Web site. (The site, titled “Save the Internet, features false, misleading “scare stories” claiming that the Internet will shut down if it is not heavily regulated in exactly the way that Google wants.)
Art, the article above demonstrates your awareness that every paycheck you take home contains money from Google, and that you have, essentially, been hired to promote this monopolistic corporation’s agenda in a way that’s specifically designed to flout lobbying reporting laws.
I guess that articles like the one above are just the necessary quid pro quo to keep the Google money coming.
ISP: It’s ironic that
ISP: It’s ironic that “ISP” would condemn Public Knowledge and Free Press for asking it’s supporters to write to the FCC when AT&T’s lobbyists PAID both congressmen and “average” individuals to do more than this. It set up pre-made letters which crammed thousands of identical, boilerplate comments into the FCC’s docket 07-52. No thought or insight required - just the lick of an envelope and placement of a stamp and another piece of spam clogs the record.
—There, I fixed your statement.
All traffic SHOULD NOT be treated equally
Network providers will state (correctly) that in order to make services “Just Work” (like VoIP and video-on-demand) it is necessary for them to prioritize some kinds of network traffic over other types. This is true. For example you SHOULD make your email (or file sharing) data wait a few milliseconds if it means preserving the quality of your VoIP phone call (Skype, Vonage, Vitelity etc).
HOWEVER, this concept can be abused by network service providers who wish to confuse the issue in order to avoid a significant regulatory burden. They may lobby: DO NOT FORCE US TO BE NEUTRAL because doing so will BREAK our ability to “Make stuff work”.
At first blush it seems like a reasonable argument. After all, any half-wit (or lawmaker) can see that there is a bona-fide need for prioritization, and in this way (perhaps one of many ways) the issue is obfuscated, and service providers have a simpler, less regulated, and HIGHLY PREFERABLE business. After all, as a COMMODITY provider the MONEY they have tied up in equipment (their high fixed cost) is rewarded (paid back) at a lower rate than if it were slightly monopolistic. I don’t blame them for trying, but yes, YES, they are trying.
What we should be asking for VERY SPECIFICALLY is a UNIFORM application of prioritization. In other words, if the network provider wants to prioritize voice, they would be well-served to do so. They should perhaps even be LEFT FREE to decide WHETHER OR NOT they want to prioritize voice at all. However, if they make the obvious decision to do so, they should be compelled by regulation to prioritize ALL voice traffic equally including thrid-party VoIP.
Otherwise, (and I’ve seen this happen in the real world) you find yourself locked in with only one REAL choice—the network provider. After MY cable company began a VoIP product offering, the quality of my third-party VoIP service quality began to deteriorate beyond usability. Being a VoIP professional I ruled out normal ‘technical problems’ that can affect VoIP (jitter buffers, QOS settings, policy shaping, layer 2 issues, competing local traffic). Finally I complained to my service provider. Their suggestion: “Use OUR own VoIP offering! It works better than the one you’re using now.” Never mind they didn’t bother to ask WHO I was “Using now”. They seemed to already know it couldn’t possibly be working out for me. Half the features at twice the price? No thanks! Wasn’t this kind of thing the impetus for deregulation back in 1984?
So remember, it’s not about neutrality for all traffic! That’s just plain wrong. It’s about neutrality toward the origin/destination of the traffic. You actually WANT (read: NEED) prioritization of some kinds of traffic over others—but the ever evolving best practices for prioritization must be applied UNIFORMLY to all service providers, and that uniformity must be enforcable. Oterwise you WILL wake up one day to hear this pitch: “TV-On-Demand not working? Try [your provider] Brand TV-On-Demand!”
Neutral Versus Prioritized Traffic: Overstating Net Neutrality
Net neutrality is indeed about neutrality for all traffic.
Net neutrality is too often confused with prioritization of selective services like VOIP. This misdefinition is commonly used in false arguments to undermine net neutrality.
ISPs provide and manage bandwidth, and access to it. When ISPs claim net neutrality interferes with their ability to manage services like VOIP, to avoid service degradation, that’s a false overstatement of what net neutrality is.
By definition, to prioritize certain applications is to provide them with a guarantee of certain minimums of uncongested bandwidth, which may or may not degrade other services, depending on total bandwidth available.
In no way does net neutrality regulate prioritization in this context, whether by requiring it or prohibiting it. ISPs are free to prioritize or de-prioritize their bandwidth quality as a commodity, into as many tiers as they like. That’s not the issue.
In fact, it’s the reverse. ISPs specifically refuse to categorize their bandwidth by variations in quality of uncongested/congested service, precisely in order to discriminate non-neutrally across different applications and customers.
That’s why bandwidth is sold at only one price per maximum speed, despite wide variations in quality of uncongested/congested service, particularly during peak periods.
Bandwidth itself is never “prioritized” (metered and capped use of service doesn’t qualify as true bandwidth), only applications are, which leaves the door wide open for non-neutral discrimination.
Overstating what net neutrality is, and then claiming that all traffic should not be treated neutrally because of a definition error, only benefits opponents of net neutrality who constantly overstate its effect anyway.
Net neutrality is sparse and stoic, a simple, unambiguos requirement that restricts much less than commonly claimed in the hysteria against it.
No one ever claimed that net neutrality means that traffic cannot be treated unequally in the sense of being prioritized, and in fact it should be prioritized, categorically, into neutrally differentiated tiers of differences in bandwith quality, to put a stop to the extenstive non-neutral discrimination that net neutrality is designed to prevent.
Shame on AT&T for supporting local little leagues!!
How dare they buy uniforms for local sports teams and sponsor chamber of commerce lunches!
Google and other over-the-top services are free and don’t want anything from the government other than to get free internet service…and teach classes to congressional campaigns about how to use YouTube to reach constituents through video rather than at chamber of commerce lunches.
Shame on ATT for their sponsoring local businesses and communities and wanting to survive so they can continue to do that. You are right on, as always, Art.
net neutrality
I’m ignorant on the subject. You make a good analogy. My question is what if the internet is open to all and there becomes a “traffic jam” on the “super highway”? I think I would probably pay a little extra to go “faster” in another lane. Maybe I’m wrong.