Many people seem more optimistic than I am that President Obama and Chairman Wheeler will preserve Net neutrality

by Ken

President Obama is feeling some love at the moment, finally, over what appears to be a strong stand taken in the statement released yesterdayseeming to commit him to the protection of Net neutrality -- you know, like he promised when he was running for president way back whenever that was. What's more, the president's statement was complemented by a statement, appearing simultaenously, as if by magic, from Obama appointee, chairman of the of-course-independent FCC, sounding as if Chairman Tom might be shifting toward a similar stand, which comes as something of a surprise, since for a while now it has seemed as if he, with his strong ties to the telecom industry, was on the verge of selling out Net neutrality if he can get an offer of a few magic beans, and maybe even if he can't.

And so, on this subject, there's a rush of good feeling in the air. I the president is enjoying being accoladed by people who haven't been wildly accoladeful of late. And it could be that something may come of it. I don't want to rain on his parade, but my feeling is more along the lines of I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it.

But let's not race too far ahead of ourselves. Here's the text of the president's statement:

An open Internet is essential to the American economy, and increasingly to our very way of life. By lowering the cost of launching a new idea, igniting new political movements, and bringing communities closer together, it has been one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known.

“Net neutrality” has been built into the fabric of the Internet since its creation — but it is also a principle that we cannot take for granted. We cannot allow Internet service providers (ISPs) to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas. That is why today, I am asking the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to answer the call of almost 4 million public comments, and implement the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality.

When I was a candidate for this office, I made clear my commitment to a free and open Internet, and my commitment remains as strong as ever. Four years ago, the FCC tried to implement rules that would protect net neutrality with little to no impact on the telecommunications companies that make important investments in our economy. After the rules were challenged, the court reviewing the rules agreed with the FCC that net neutrality was essential for preserving an environment that encourages new investment in the network, new online services and content, and everything else that makes up the Internet as we now know it. Unfortunately, the court ultimately struck down the rules — not because it disagreed with the need to protect net neutrality, but because it believed the FCC had taken the wrong legal approach.

The FCC is an independent agency, and ultimately this decision is theirs alone. I believe the FCC should create a new set of rules protecting net neutrality and ensuring that neither the cable company nor the phone company will be able to act as a gatekeeper, restricting what you can do or see online. The rules I am asking for are simple, common-sense steps that reflect the Internet you and I use every day, and that some ISPs already observe. These bright-line rules include:

• No blocking. If a consumer requests access to a website or service, and the content is legal, your ISP should not be permitted to block it. That way, every player — not just those commercially affiliated with an ISP — gets a fair shot at your business.

• No throttling. Nor should ISPs be able to intentionally slow down some content or speed up others — through a process often called “throttling” — based on the type of service or your ISP’s preferences.

• Increased transparency. The connection between consumers and ISPs — the so-called “last mile” — is not the only place some sites might get special treatment. So, I am also asking the FCC to make full use of the transparency authorities the court recently upheld, and if necessary to apply net neutrality rules to points of interconnection between the ISP and the rest of the Internet.

• No paid prioritization. Simply put: No service should be stuck in a “slow lane” because it does not pay a fee. That kind of gatekeeping would undermine the level playing field essential to the Internet’s growth. So, as I have before, I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization and any other restriction that has a similar effect.

If carefully designed, these rules should not create any undue burden for ISPs, and can have clear, monitored exceptions for reasonable network management and for specialized services such as dedicated, mission-critical networks serving a hospital. But combined, these rules mean everything for preserving the Internet’s openness.

The rules also have to reflect the way people use the Internet today, which increasingly means on a mobile device. I believe the FCC should make these rules fully applicable to mobile broadband as well, while recognizing the special challenges that come with managing wireless networks.

To be current, these rules must also build on the lessons of the past. For almost a century, our law has recognized that companies who connect you to the world have special obligations not to exploit the monopoly they enjoy over access in and out of your home or business. That is why a phone call from a customer of one phone company can reliably reach a customer of a different one, and why you will not be penalized solely for calling someone who is using another provider. It is common sense that the same philosophy should guide any service that is based on the transmission of information — whether a phone call, or a packet of data.

So the time has come for the FCC to recognize that broadband service is of the same importance and must carry the same obligations as so many of the other vital services do. To do that, I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services. This is a basic acknowledgment of the services ISPs provide to American homes and businesses, and the straightforward obligations necessary to ensure the network works for everyone — not just one or two companies.

Investment in wired and wireless networks has supported jobs and made America the center of a vibrant ecosystem of digital devices, apps, and platforms that fuel growth and expand opportunity. Importantly, network investment remained strong under the previous net neutrality regime, before it was struck down by the court; in fact, the court agreed that protecting net neutrality helps foster more investment and innovation. If the FCC appropriately forbears from the Title II regulations that are not needed to implement the principles above — principles that most ISPs have followed for years — it will help ensure new rules are consistent with incentives for further investment in the infrastructure of the Internet.

The Internet has been one of the greatest gifts our economy — and our society — has ever known. The FCC was chartered to promote competition, innovation, and investment in our networks. In service of that mission, there is no higher calling than protecting an open, accessible, and free Internet. I thank the Commissioners for having served this cause with distinction and integrity, and I respectfully ask them to adopt the policies I have outlined here, to preserve this technology’s promise for today, and future generations to come.

IT ALL SOUNDS VERY PRETTY, BUT --

As is often pointed out, there is pretty much no constituency for Net neutrality except from people like us. Not because it isn't important to most Americans; they just don't know it is, and nobody has yet figured out how to make them get it. So to them it sounds like some arcane technical issue, not a guarantee that access to the Internet is going to remain available to all on an equal basis rather than being doled out by the telecom companies according to who's willing to pay most.

To make matters worse, the other side has -- yet again -- done a boffo job of messaging the telecom

So naturally, no sooner had the president's and the chairman's statements seen the light of day than the stooges of the oligarchs were screeching and braying about this dastardly attempt to impose government will on the Internet, with the dread specter of (gasp) regulation. Do I have to add that the Right has already won the verbal battle on "regulation" by roughly 100 percent with all precincts reporting? Never mind that regulation is one of the crucial factors that has made the American economy function without spinning out of control, and made so much of everything around us available on a basis vastly more equitable than if it had been left to the unchecked "free market."

With regard to public utilities, in particular, the operative principle of the "free market," unchecked greed and selfishness, would have led the Greediest and Most Selfish to pluck off the highest-paying fruit and say a haughty "eff you" to all the rest of us. And I'm guessing most Americans think that the Internet functions more or less as a public utility, which it sort of did until the recent rash of court decisions saying that the government can't treat it as such unless . . . well, unless it officially declares that that's what it is.

Still, the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans with regard to "regulation" is a wipeout. If it's "regulation," overwhelming numbers of Americans are against it. And now it turns out that what the president is proposing is worse than regulation, as if anything could be worse than regulation. Why, it is -- brays the loudest and most malign jackass of them all, Sen. Rafael "Ted frrom Alberta" Cruz, is "Obamacare for the Internet." Har-har-har. "The Internet should not operate at the speed of government." Har-har-har.

Great, so now all the trillions of lies and obfuscations that the demons of the Right have fobbed off on the American public have created an entirely new category of opprobrium. The response to the Mad Albertan's jackassery has been an eruption of "Obamacare for [fill in the blank]" witticisms, from people whose brains have the functional capacity of cotton candy.

Plus, in case anyone hadn't noticed, the braying jackasses fronting for the oligarchs are now in charge of both houses of Congress. And in case anyone had forgotten, the opposition to "Obamacare for the Internet" has the financial weight of all those telecom giants at its back. Those fellas are probably feeling hurt, figuring that in exchange for giving the government all the data it's asking for, they're owed one -- like this itty-bitty gazillion-dollar payday.

While the Net neutrality side has made no progress in making Americans understand why the it should matter to them, the other side seems to be making excellent progress in making people believe that Net neutrality stands brutishly in the path of untold miracles of innovation and future Internettish heaven. Sure, it's that chokehold of government innovation that has caused our telecom giants to eschew raising outraccess speeds to levels faster than their present fraction of most of the rest of the developed world's, and at rates many multiples of those paid by those people with the faster service.

I suppose it's possible that the president will for once go the distance for his announced position, with a view to keeping close track of the people who stand in the way of open access to the Internet, with a view to holding them accountable. There are only two problems with this hypothesis:

(1) This is Barack Obama we're talking about. His standard negotiating tactic is to bend over and challenge his opposites to see how far up they can shove it.

(2) Um, where is this constituency for Net neutrality to whom the dastards are going to be ratted out?

#