Blackburn Has Received Quarter Million
From Telecoms that Like Her 'Net' Bill
BRENTWOOD, TN – Internet privatization advocate Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Brentwood has pocketed more than a quarter million dollars from large telecom, TV and Internet corporations and trade groups since 2002, a review of Federal Election Commission reports shows.
"The corporate takeover of the people's Internet is at hand and is being helped along by politicians like Marsha Blackburn," said Gary Moore, communications coordinator of Citizens for a Free and Open Internet Political Action Committee (PAC) of Brentwood. "The Internet was developed by the U.S. government with taxpayers' money---if anything should stay free from Wall Street's greedy clutches and exist for the benefit of all Americans, the Internet is it.
"The fight for free speech on an open Internet is democracy's last stand."
The Federal Communications Commission met Dec. 21 and voted, 3-2, in favor of Chairman Julius Genachowski's proposal to set so-called Net Neutrality rules. The FCC order used the right catch phrases---"level playing field"…"innovation without permission"---and laid down the basic principles of net neutrality: all users and all web content are created equal and are not to be blocked or manipulated for extra profit by the Internet Service Providers (ISPs). The press release trumpeted their action as a victory for consumers, and President Obama was quick to pile on and claim an accomplishment.
However, the order was toothless in that it spelled out no punishments for violators, and advocates of true net neutrality---as opposed to the watered-down net neutrality of the FCC's order---said the FCC was too eager to please the ISP Cartel of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, which had spent millions lobbying the FCC to see things their way.
In fact, while the FCC signaled its basic intentions three weeks before the meeting, Genachowski did not actually release a copy of the order---not even to the other four FCC commissioners---until just before midnight on the morning of the vote. Only AT&T's and Comcast's lobbyists knew for sure what the order would exactly say, since they helped write it and approved its final form.
True net neutrality advocates wanted the FCC to assert its right to classify the ISPs under Title II as common carriers, as are the phone companies, and which would put the FCC and the First Amendment more solidly in charge of Net Neutrality. As it was, the FCC said that land line ISPs could not outright block a web site and could not discriminate by moving some web sites more slowly or quickly than others in order to profit from side deals.
The FCC discriminated between wire line providers and wireless providers, however, by telling the wireless boys that they could, indeed, discriminate and manipulate content to suit them, on the theory that the wireless platform was changing too rapidly and required further monitoring before the FCC could figure out what to do about it.
The true headline after the meeting was what the FCC did not say out in the open but the deal they reached behind closed doors in many sessions with AT&T, Comcast and Verizon lobbyists leading up to their decision---to allow the ISP Cartel to profit in new ways at the expense of consumers who will end up paying more for fewer choices. The future of the Internet is going to be split into the haves and have-nots.
There will be a slow lane for us regular slobs and a fast lane of premium content and service. The slow lane will adhere to the net neutrality principles and will be called the "public Internet." The good stuff and the good service and the best content and the cutting edge will move to a new fast lane of premium-priced Internet, allowing a whole 'nother profit center for the giant telecoms.
On the fast lane, the ISPs will push content which they own, and they can profit by censoring, excluding or charging new "middle man" fees for content from others. Let's call this the "Godfather Profit Model"---while they are already paid for their service "pipelines," they will extort a double-dip of protection money from major web sites and content providers, and in exchange, the ISPs will move their data and video moving more quickly than those who do not pay up.
The ISPs also could spy on users' activity and charge higher fees based on which sites consumers go to and how much bandwidth they use---a throwback to something like the old AOL model that charged by the minute---rather than the flat rates which we have today.
Prior to the FCC meeting, both Comcast and AT&T said they were satisfied with the FCC's proposal. That's all we needed to know about what the FCC did---if the ISP Cartel likes the deal, it stinks for consumers.
Genachowski and two Democrats on the commission voted for the proposal, and two Republicans voted against it. Curiously, each of the five commissioners wrote lengthy explanations of their votes---like they were actually ashamed, but here is how I was forced---and what they liked and did not like about how things went down.
The Democrats apologized for not making the guidelines tougher or more protective of consumer interests. The Republicans went berserk with typical Republican phony rants, so they could continue their "party of no" record.
They complained that everything is hunky-dory with the Internet now, so don't fix what is not broken---although the corporate giants which own the Republicans have been chomping at the bit to change their business model into a higher profit gear, and the FCC came out with this to officially give the ISPs the green light to do all those things the FCC order omitted. The ISPs were worried about the "uncertainty" of any moves the FCC might make, so they pushed the FCC to go ahead and lay out the loopholes the ISPs needed to follow.
The two R's on the commission kept worrying even after the order about the dreaded "uncertainty." They wrung their hands and spewed angst over the "uncertainty" of how the Internet guidelines would play out. Oh, yes, the same "uncertainty" the millionaires and billionaires and the congressmen they own wailed about over the tax cuts for the top 1% of income earners. Poor millionaires.
Ooh, what uncertainty, what torture, what Republican uncertainty. Uncertainty is not knowing where your next meal is coming from, or where you are going to sleep at night, or if you are going to get a job or whether you are going to make the rent payment.
After the meeting and after they had put up a good whine for public display, the R's went to the after-party sponsored by AT&T lobbyists. They toasted each other, chugged Dom and yukked it up how they had scored a biggie for corporate greed over ordinary Americans and the First Amendment.
Blackburn, representative for Tennessee's seventh district, introduced HR 3924, a bill which prohibits government regulation and oversight of the Internet, in October, 2009. Blackburn sits on the Communications, Technology and Internet Subcommittee in the House, and she has said next year she will re-introduce her bill, which states, "The Federal Communications Commission shall not propose, promulgate or issue any regulations regarding the Internet or IP-enabled services."
According to Federal Election Commission records reviewed by the Open Internet PAC, Blackburn's political campaign committee and her WEDGEPAC received $278,035 from major Internet stake-holders from June 7, 2002 through Nov. 22, 2010. The single largest contributor was wireless kingpin Verizon through its political action committees with $44,035 donated, although AT&T and BellSouth combined contributed $58,500.
AT&T re-bought BellSouth, a formerly 1982 divested Baby Bell, in 2006. FEC records show AT&T's PAC donated $42,500 and BellSouth's PAC contributed $16,000 to Blackburn. Next were the National Cable and Telecommunications Association PAC with $35,000 and Comcast with $21,000. Other contributors among major stake-holders in how the burgeoning Internet evolves and is regulated included Time Warner, Viacom, Yahoo and General Electric, which owns NBC and which is in the process of merging with Comcast.
Those totals do not include donations from individuals, only PACs. The numbers do not include many PACs which have a stake in the Internet but which are not so close to Internet transmission, such as the Recording Industry Association of America, Warner Music Group and other music industry and various business corporations and associations.
Total of all donations from corporate and other PACs was $2,612,085 over the same time frame, making the Phone, Cable, TV and Internet PACs represent about 10.64% of all contributions.
First amendment advocates wanted the FCC to assert its authority over the Internet and to "codify" Net Neutrality principles that would keep the Internet operating essentially as it is now, with everyone having equal access to search for and to post legal information. While the FCC took a limp-wristed swipe at it, they left the door open for a fresh corporate profit stampede---over the fallen bodies of consumers.
"Blackburn's bill certainly---and lack of a true Open Internet order from the FCC probably---would be a death knell for dissenting political views and candidates not sponsored by the wealthy," Moore said. The bottom line for consumers of Internet, phone service and TV would be fewer choices and higher costs.
"Freedom of speech principles should control the Internet, not an 'Internet Cartel' of AT&T, Comcast and Verizon. With corporate money increasingly in charge of the politicians and the electoral process, more than ever the government on behalf of the people must assert that regular Americans are the priority.
"It is the FCC's job to protect free speech and to prevent the corporate cartel's takeover of the people's Internet. The Internet is the last level playing field ordinary Americans have."
The stripping of Net Neutrality from the present system would also increase costs for many long-distance telephone consumers, said Randall Putala, chairman of Citizens for a Free and Open Internet PAC.
"The large telecommunications corporations also have a vested interest in blocking free or discounted long-distance telephone companies from operating on the Internet," Putala said. "The FCC currently endorses Net Neutrality laws that allow companies such as Skype, MagicJack, Vonage and others to offer free or heavily discounted long distance services in the U.S.
"Their service---and the heavy bandwidth they consume---is of key concern to the nation’s largest Internet service providers, such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, which currently earn no revenue from that bandwidth. Blackburn’s bill seeks to remove the Net Neutrality requirements from these giant telecoms, so they would no longer be required to carry this competitive bandwidth.
"Under the stated premise of ‘removing restrictions’ from the business community, the ISP corporations would become the new enforcers of what is ‘acceptable’ Internet bandwidth use and what is not," Putala said.
"The new ‘freedoms’ that the corporate telecommunication giants will enjoy are likely to quickly translate into new restrictions on service availability to consumers ---and that will mean higher prices for everyday consumers. That is why the FCC vote is so critical to the future of the Internet and the freedom---or lack of freedom---that online Americans will enjoy in the days ahead,” Putala said.
Keeping the Internet open is key to small businesses, present and future, Moore said.
"Open Internet is critical to innovation and entrepreneurship, providing a way for Americans to start in the garage and become Google or eBay," Moore said. "Without open Internet, monopoly corporations could squash competition and set up high barriers to entry into the business world. Job growth in our economy comes from small businesses, not from the outsourcing, downsizing corporations.
"In the future, video, radio, telephone and other connections will all go through the Internet," Moore said. "Most people only have one or two choices now for receiving Internet---the phone company or the cable company. The lack of competition that we already have has caused the U.S. to drop to 15th or worse in the world in per capita broadband adoption, and bandwidth speed in the U.S. also lags but costs more.
"With Comcast merging with NBC Universal, we will have another monopoly with dangerous ways to manipulate the Internet," Moore said. "Comcast could offer consumers only content from NBC, allowing them to 'double dip' its profits, or they could charge premium prices for content from others as cable TV does now. They could also censor and exclude anything they wanted.
"Journalism has been gutted in the U.S. With increasing consolidation of corporate control over the Internet, and with news media ownership becoming concentrated in the hands of a wealthy few, the Internet could turn into Fox News," Moore said.
The major corporate players have been spending a reported $1 million a week to lobby Congress and the FCC. According to The Washington Post*, "Over the past three years more than 150 organizations hired at least 118 outside lobbying groups to influence the outcome of the (FCC's) vote."
"We taxpayers funded the research and development of the Internet," Moore said. "We provided AT&T and the like with billions of dollars of subsidies and tax breaks to extend lines outside of densely populated cities. We charged AT&T and Verizon nothing to lay their lines in public rights-of-way. Our phone bills each month contain a 'Universal Service Fee' which is supposed to help the telecoms pay for extending service to virtually all Americans.
"Regular Americans paid for the Internet. We expect to keep it."
More information from Citizens for a Free and Open Internet can be found at www.WhatsUpWithMarsha.com.
* http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/17/AR2010121706183.html
No comments:
Post a Comment