The following statement is attributed to Harold Feld, legal director of Public Knowledge:

“It is unfortunate that the Federal Communications Commission chose to give wireless Internet access a second-class status to becoming an open network.

“Today’s dispute between Google and Verizon is just the type of situation that likely would not happen if it were clear that a firm ‘no discrimination’ standard were in effect for wireless services.

On today's podcast we update the status of the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile merger, walk through the intricacies of politicians licensing music for their campaigns, talk about IP protection surrounding attempts to 3D print a cube from the movie Super 8, and mark the death and life of social networks.  We also discuss the decision of civil society organizations to pull out of international open internet discussions at OECD and consider the ramifications of this week's Supreme Court ruling on minors' access to violent video games.

You can download the audio directly by clicking here (MP3) or stream it using the player below:

Want to subscribe to our podcast? Click here for the MP3 feed.

Robin Chase, the co-founder and former CEO of Zipcar, will testify tomorrow that an open Internet was necessary to the founding of the highly successful company.  In her oral statement, Chase will tell the House Communications Subcommittee:  “Without an open Internet, Zipcar simply would not exist.”

If anything, the rules the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved last December should be stronger, in order to encourage innovation and job creation, according to Chase’s statement:  “Indeed, I think the FCC's rules actually did not go far enough, especially with respect to wireless: The idea that different rules should apply, and that my experience of the Internet would be different depending on whether I was sitting at my desk at home connected, or on a park bench accessing those pages wirelessly is nonsense. And it dramatically complicates life for innovators and entrepreneurs.”

The time between Thanksgiving and the end of December is all about one thing – anticipation.  (Cue Carly if you wish).  Through December, there’s only one topic on everyone’s minds.  It can’t be helped.  The familiar themes float through the consciousness.  If only that day would come, wishes that were born a year ago will be fulfilled.  Sigh.

Oh, wait.  You thought I was talking about Christmas?  Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Ha.  No, we’re talking about the Dec. 21 meeting of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) meeting at which the Commission is expected to proceed with some sort of open Internet rule.

After all the shouting has died down, after the House elects its Republican leaders and after the Senate sorts itself out, the reality is that policy in the telecom sector will likely remain where it has been for the past two years – in state of suspended animation.  That’s a shame, because the people who can most benefit by some reasonable and commonsense changes may not have the opportunity to do so.

It’s not at all difficult to look at all that went on over the last couple of weeks and wonder if the Open Internet was only a grand dream that never existed, or was a phenomenon that appeared all too briefly and then was gone.  Either way, there are more losers than winners.

Every once in a while, an obscure bureaucratic notice can crack open some wide vistas of unintended understanding.  So it was on October 5, when the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a “hearing designation order” on a complaint filed by the Tennis Channel against Comcast.

In this case, we have a case of alleged discrimination against a growing and thriving cable channel that also provides a window into how the Internet would look if Comcast and the telephone companies had their way.  As you might expect, the picture isn’t pretty.

The Federal Communications Commission issued a public notice, putting out for public comment two elements in the policy suggestion from Verizon and Google.  The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

 “Nothing in this public notice prevents the FCC from taking prompt action on its ‘Third Way’ proceeding, which would make certain all Americans have affordable access to broadband, and to make sure it can deal with public safety and other crucial issues that are broader than the narrow issues on which the Commission seeks comment.

“We expect the Commission will move quickly to set the legal framework for the FCC to oversee broadband Internet access services, with specific rules to protect the open Internet to follow soon after.

Tom Tauke, Verizon’s erudite executive vice president for public affairs, made a valiant attempt the other day to try to salvage the policy deal his company made with Google.  In a speech at the Technology Policy Institute’s telecom forum in Aspen, he brought out arguments old and new to argue why it was that an agreement forged between two big companies to their benefit should be accepted.

Earlier today, FCC Chief of Staff Edward Lazarus announced that the multiparty talks discussing a framework for an open Internet had been called off.

The following statement is attributed to Gigi B. Sohn, president and co-founder of Public Knowledge:

“The path before the Federal Communications Commission is now perfectly clear.  It must act to ensure that consumers are protected, that everyone can have access to broadband and that the Commission has the authority to ensure and open and non-discriminatory Internet.  It can do that simply by acting on the dockets now pending before the Commission.

“We were concerned about the negotiations because they were largely restricted to the biggest industry players.  The FCC now can use the comments and public views submitted to it as a basis for its decisions, as the Commission should have done all along.”