The Aug. 26 Washington Post editorial "An open, innovative Internet" wrongly stated that a court decided the Federal Communications Commission has no authority over Internet service providers. What the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said was that the section (Title I) of the communications statute cited by agency lawyers did not support the FCC ruling against Comcast's blocking of BitTorrent. This was a predictable outcome of FCC actions during the Bush administration that consciously moved broadband Internet access from Title II, which would have supported the commission's authority, to a murky place that invited court challenge.

This was a major flip-flop from the historic -- and successful -- approach of forbidding discrimination on our communications networks. Now is the time to put broadband back under Title II, where it belongs -- and under which many smaller companies continue to offer Internet access to the public.

On the Internet, when I send my ones and zeros somewhere, they shouldn't have to wait in line behind the ones and zeros of wealthier people or corporations. That's the way the Net was designed, and it's central to a concept called "net neutrality," which ensures that Internet service providers can't pick favorites.

Recently, though, big telecommunications companies have argued that their investment in the Net's infrastructure should allow them more control over how it's used. The concerned nerds of the world are up in arms, and there's been a long, loud public debate, during which the Federal Communications Commission appeared to develop a plan to preserve net neutrality.

The FCC's latest action on the question came partly in response to a federal appeals court ruling in April that appeared to limit the agency's authority over Internet service providers. In May, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski issued a plan to classify the Internet under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act. In English, that means the agency would be legally recognizing a fact so obvious that I feel silly even typing it: We use the Internet to communicate. With that radical notion established, the FCC would have jurisdiction to protect the public interest on the Net, including enforcing neutrality. Since announcing its intent, though, the FCC hasn't followed through, and the corporations involved are trying to take the reins before the public servants do.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is appealing a federal court ruling that its indecency policy is unconstitutional, arguing the decision makes it all but impossible for the agency to enforce restrictions on broadcasting nudity or profanity.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York struck down the FCC's indecency policy last month, calling it a violation of the First Amendment. The court said the rule forces broadcasters to self-censor in order to avoid fines for accidentally broadcasting nudity or profanity.

The FCC filed a petition Thursday morning asking the court to reconsider the decision.

UPDATE: @reclaimthemedia will tweet comments on tonight's hearing, starting around 3pm PDT. Sen. Al Franken spoke out on net neutrality ahead of a Minnesota visit by officials from the Federal Communications Commission to discuss the same issue. The FCC will hold a hearing at South High School in Minneapolis at 6 pm tonight. Franken said on Tuesday that if telecoms have their way, consumers will end up paying much more and have less open access to the internet.

“Net neutrality means everything travels at the same speed,” said Franken. He said that telecoms want consumers to “pay for the pipes.”

“The internet service providers want to pay for faster, premium access to people who will pay for it,” he said. “That means someone will get FOX before they will get you,” he told Access to Democracy host Alan Miller.

“Ultimately what I’m afraid of,” said Franken, “is that the internet service providers will be made up of about five companies.”

Here's more information from Main Street Project.

In a rare instance of unity, religious broadcast network Educational Media Foundation (EMF) and grassroots radio advocate Prometheus Radio Project have found common ground regarding the future of Low Power FM (LPFM) and translators. Over the past decade, Prometheus and EMF, the owner of the nationwide KLOVE/AIR 1 FM network, have held opposing views regarding the remaining available radio spectrum. Now for the first time, the organizations have come together on a mutually beneficial policy proposal, submitted to the FCC as a Memorandum of Agreement.

This morning, Rep. Jay Inslee (WA-01), Rep. Ed Markey (MA-07), Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-14), and Rep. Mike Doyle (PA-14), all members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, laid out a set of open internet principles in a letter to Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski. The letter addresses directly the recent policy proposal from Google and Verizon by laying out principles that would keep the internet open, implement the FCC s broadband plan to increase broadband access, and deny broadband service providers the ability to control consumer choice.

"Americans online experience shouldn't be dictated by corporate CEO's," said Rep. Inslee. "Innovation and creativity online have given rise to millions of jobs and tremendous economic growth, in large part because individual consumers have been free to access what they want. The principles we have set forth in this letter coincide with that fact. Net neutrality is not about imposing a new set of rules, net neutrality is about preserving the open Internet and empowering consumers and small businesses to bring the next generation of entrepreneurial drive to the world wide web."

In a letter to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, MDC member groups highlighted how a policy proposal from Google and Verizon fails to protect the Open Internet. The groups call on the Commission to act swiftly to oversee broadband and adopt strong Open Internet rules. You can download a PDF of the letter here.

Julius Genachowski
Chairman
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th St SW
Washington, D.C. 20554

cc: Commissioner Michael Copps
Commissioner Robert McDowell
Commission Mignon Clyburn
Commissioner Meredith Attwell Baker

August 12, 2010

Dear Chairman Genachowski:

We would like to thank you for meeting with representatives of the public interest community last week and providing us with the opportunity to articulate a framework for broadband oversight and open Internet policy to which the undersigned organizations remain committed.

In light of this week’s announcement from Google and Verizon, we wish to highlight the ways in which the companies’ proposed policy fails to meet the framework we discussed, thus does not protect an open Internet.

This summer has been one of the most exhausting in recent memory.  First, there has been a constant barrage of record heat and humidity.  Second, there is the continuing battle over whether and how to preserve the FCC’s authority to protect broadband consumers and ensure universal broadband access.  While the former is somewhat predictable for Washington, the latter has been like a soap opera, with lots of plot twists, make-ups and break-ups and nearly a few tears (of utter frustration).

The latest wrinkle came on Thursday, when FCC Chief of Staff Eddie Lazarus declared the end of the two month negotiations between AT&T, Verizon and the National Cable & Telecommunications Association on one side, and Google, the Internet telephony provider Skype and the Open Internet Coalition (an industry-public interest coalition of which PK is a member) on the other.  Lazarus said the talks have “been productive on several fronts, but has not generated a robust framework to preserve the openness and freedom of the Internet - one that drives innovation, investment, free speech, and consumer choice.” 

This afternoon Congressman Jay Inslee (WA-01) released the following statement regarding the policy proposal released jointly by Google and Verizon on rules for access to the internet:

"This afternoon's announcement from Google and Verizon falls far short of the net neutrality principles necessary to protect consumers online. I m disappointed that such esteemed leaders would put forward a policy proposal that fails to protect the very foundation of the Internet s success open access for all. Many of us have been warning for a number of years that broadband service providers would begin to use a lack of net neutrality regulations to prioritize their increasingly diverse business offerings and content, thereby jeopardizing open internet access. Today's announcement is one more reason that the FCC must act to reclassify broadband and protect consumers online. The American people deserve nothing less than a free and open internet where ideas and innovation are allowed to flourish, and today s proposal has made it even clearer that we cannot rely on industry alone to do just that."

A coalition of public interest organizations presented their unified position to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski and his senior staff on the Commission's Open Internet and Broadband Internet Service Framework proceedings. Amid reports of a deal between Verizon and Google to prioritize certain traffic on the Internet and the FCC announcing the end of closed-door meetings with the largest Internet companies and Internet Service Providers, the proposed framework comes at a critically important time. At the meeting the coalition stressed the importance of setting a firm deadline for the FCC to clarify its jurisdiction over broadband service as well a necessary framework for enforcing meaningful Open Internet rules.

The unified position public interest groups laid out to FCC Chairman Genachowski this week parallels strong support from Congressional leadership and the White House calling for immediate action to preserve an open Internet," stated Sascha Meinrath, Director of the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative. "Non-discrimination and consumer protections are critically important for innovation and Chairman Genachowski has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that our 21st Century economy is built upon a sound foundation."