"For now," though, seems to be the phrase on which everything teeters. Amendments could be added on the Senate floor, and both could be vetoed by the President, who has promised to do so.

It hasn’t been all party-line, like one might imagine. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cal.) voted in favor of immunity, while Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) argued the telephone companies "deserve our thanks" for spying on us and breaking the law.

Senator Alen Specter (R-PA) offered a "compromise" at one point that would substitute the government for the telecoms in court.  But these actions to rob the American people of their ability to hold companies and their government accountable are rather moot.

For now.

Whether or not one agrees the wiretapping and intercepting of Internet traffic was justified (or even legal), the people should not be robbed of their right to sue and have this settled in court.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, the organization heading up one of a dozen class action suits waiting to heard, cheered the representatives that held up the rights of the public. 

"We are pleased that the House and a majority of the Judiciary Committee’s members have signaled that they want Americans to have their day in court," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston.

"The fight isn’t over yet, however. We look forward to working with Senators Leahy, Specter, and Feingold and other lawmakers in both chambers of Congress to make sure that the bill eventually sent to the president allows the people’s lawsuits to go forward."

FCC Gets Monkey’s Paw From Telco Front Group

It appears as good news. An anti-Net-Neutrality, pro-telecom organization calls for Net Neutrality enforcement. And if the telecoms demand something of FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, you know it will be done.

Must be all the birthday singing they do for him.

After Comcast was busted blocking BitTorrent downloads, HOTI sent a letter to Martin asking the FCC to launch a full investigation to see if the four principles of Net Neutrality had been violated.

Just for review, those four principles are the same ones AT&T had to accept in order for their merger with Bell South to be approved, the same ones Martin himself said had no teeth. They are as follows:

1.    Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice;
2.    Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
3.    Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and
4.    Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content             providers

The authors of the letter, Mike McCurry and Christopher Wolf, disagree with Martin’s initial assertion that the principles are unenforceable and believe the FCC "has clear authority" to do so.

What’s interesting about the letter is not just what is between the lines, but also how it plays on Martin’s philosophical inconsistencies. They use his own words to the Senate Commerce Committee against him to drive home just how extensive the FCC’s authority over Internet service providers is (or vice versa).

Another inconsistency to leverage: Martin’s reluctance to regulate or interfere with telecom giants, but full willingness to get his hands dirtied with cable providers. Before the keys were cold again on HOTI’s keyboard, Martin was dead set on stiffening regulations on the cable industry – most likely driven by his conscience, a la carte programming that provides true family friendly programming the trump to his deregulation mindset.

But what is most elegant about the HOTI letter is that it subtly mirrors a couple of very pro-telecom objectives: It puts additional heat on a very large competitor in the Internet and television space (the telecoms are beginning to offer TV); and it appears pro-Net Neutrality in an increasingly pro-Net Neutrality time without actually being so.

Smell that? It’s opportunism.

An FCC that appears to enforce the principles helps build a case that there is no legislation needed. In a perfect free market world, the FCC can hold its own, enforcing its own principles without Congress, even principles its own chairman said were unenforceable.

Just to save you following a link, let’s relive Martin’s words here:

Importantly, however, while the Democrat Commissioners may have extracted concessions from AT&T, they in no way bind future Commission action. Specifically, a minority of Commissioners cannot alter Commission precedent or bind future Commission decisions, policies, actions, or rules. 

The "concessions" are the same principles as listed above. Though a minority of Commissioners cannot bind Commission actions, perhaps AT&T-backed grass roots groups can. They’ve been pretty good at pulling Martin’s strings in the past.

If they can hurt a competitor while ensuring Net Neutrality remains unenforceable (while making others think that it is), then that fits squarely into a win-win corporate strategy.

" AT&T’s front group calling out Comcast is like Exxon calling out Texaco — they’re all bad faith actors with business models built on attacking competition in the marketplace and hurting consumers," says MoveOn.org’s Adam Green.

But what is equally disturbing, is the extent to which AT&T is involved in the workings of our federal government. Recently it was revealed that the secret room at AT&T HQ reserved for NSA personnel was used not only to snoop on phone calls, but all Internet traffic coming across the backbone as well.

If worded right, Net Neutrality legislation could put a stop to that, too. You know, if certain legislators don’t grant immunity to them in the meantime.

The dark conclusion, as usual lately: The government, including the FCC, the DOJ, the Administration, and a good portion of Congress don’t work for the people anymore. They work for shareholders and contributors.

And Kevin Martin? He’s made it very clear over the years whom he serves.   

And the one, essential person sworn to uphold the document that freed us from tyranny and set in place safeguards for watchdogs, along with his administration, are actively chipping away at those cornerstones, while showing loyalty to money, not to the people.

How many times did Verizon turn over our phone records to the Justice Department? At least 720 times since 2005. Next it’s marketers, apparently, unless you opt out.

And AT&T? Who knows how much information was unconstitutionally handed over from the little room set aside for the NSA at corporate HQ?

While they cry immunity, and while Congress mulls legislation keeping them immune from lawsuits set in motion by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and ACLU, they also make free-market arguments to further develop a broadband and wireless market that is very much not free.

Competition is blocked at every turn because they don’t want competition in the wireless or broadband space, and are willing to sell you out to keep competition out of it.

Worse, so is your government. The DOJ thinks Net Neutrality is unnecessary. Besides, how else will they be able to sniff your data packets if ISPs aren’t allowed to differentiate? The FCC is almost desperate not to anger the incumbents, but doesn’t want to make the citizens angry either. So they sit on their hands instead of act.

Meanwhile the biggest players in the space continue to prove the point of Net Neutrality proponents by acting as information gatekeepers. Verizon offers the most recent proof by preventing NARAL Pro-Choice America from sending text messages, thanks to "a dusty internal policy."

This disturbed even the Christian Coalition, who co-authored an op-ed piece with NARAL – their ideological enemy – speaking out against censorship. They conclude together:

If corporations can’t tell Americans what to say on a phone call, they shouldn’t be able to control content or tell us what to say in a text message, an e-mail or anywhere else.

That’s something all Americans — regardless of their political views — can agree on.

Luckily, Senator Dorgan is calling for hearings about cell phone censorship.

"This, to me, is yet another example of a gatekeeper controlling the content of the network," said Sen. Dorgan, in a statement. "I would like the Commerce Committee to hold a hearing on this issue of discrimination and further explore what I see as a clear and imminent problem."

But, unfortunately, that’s not all. The House of Representatives passed legislation yesterday that would protect bloggers, much the way the mainstream press is protected (well, sort of – didn’t work for a certain New York Times reporter I can think of) from having to reveal their sources.

President Bush said he would veto the legislation in the name of, you can probably guess by now, "national security."

What he means by that: the security of the government and corporations to do whatever they please, constitutionally questionable or not. Freedom of the press was set up to protect whistleblowers, and if the President was familiar with the document he swore to uphold, he would know that.

Bloggers and freedom of the press have never been more important than they are in this time of conglomerate-owned media, which feeds us the latest Paris Hilton exploit rather than information that could affect company objectives. Without bloggers, the New Media, and proper protection there will be no whistleblowers left.

And that’s exactly what the corporate government wants.  

But what are you going to do if a Chinese product you buy directly kills your dog? The government over there doesn’t seem to show much sympathy (or regulation, for that matter, unless it’s an issue of free speech).

Beijing Cyber Recreation District, what the virtual world has been dubbed may take a while to come to pass, and even then, critics argue its "just-in-time manufacturing" model is doomed from the outset, as the shopping experience requires a certain amount of tangibility.

But didn’t they say that about online retailing in general? The model proposed in Beijing just sounds like the next evolution of e-tailing, a massive made-to-order warehouse that works so long as there are enough people ordering a certain kind of shirt.

Personally, whenever possible (and it’s really, really difficult), I avoid buying things made in China. I have my high-horse moral reasons for that. The model, however, doesn’t have to stay in China. It can be applied anywhere, like even (gasp) America, and may even revitalize manufacturing in this country.

No more worries about ridiculous store markups on merchandise, just a sort of made-at-home service fee. I already pay that tax when I can find an American-made product, because I have known and loved people that demand a livable wage here.

And when we look at this model, we have to ask: Whom does it hurt?

Well, we’d have to say the Wal-Marts of the world; doubtful all those mom-and-pop shops out there that were run out of their own home towns will care. They may even have a new avenue for business, a way to compete.

That is, of course, until our corporate governors decide even Wal-Mart needs some kind of protection from those that would fire the Middlemen. And don’t think that couldn’t happen – corporatism is still alive and thriving in America.  

Though most everyone was annoyed by him, and you could hear him far beyond the designated free speech area, none would dare to trample his right to speak, and a few would engage in debate with him, or would stand across the sidewalk preaching the brilliance of David Hume instead, at competing decibels.

That’s the awkward, wonderful beauty of free speech.

But it’s not the same from country to country, or essentially from state to state, and it’s even trickier on the Web, where everything is international, and just about everything worth visiting is hosted by a larger, private entity.

They are not government entities, so they do not have to, if headquartered in the US, guarantee those inalienable rights Americans cherish, but will honor them where possible, for violating them will turn their constituents, their netizens, against them. In terms of speech, the most cherished of these inalienable rights, it’s a fine line between terms of service enforcement and censorship.

It’s an even finer line between philosophical absolutism and "just once in the name of popular condemnation." If that sounds obtuse it’s because I unsuccessfully tried to boil down something complex into a few words…where’s Hemingway when I need him? Censorship is wrong, most will agree, until a certain percentage of the population agrees what was said was heinous enough to warrant it. Free speech until the collective rejects it.

Germany doesn’t seem to care to walk these fuzzy philosophical lines. Soon after the country reportedly denied Tom Cruise a license to film because of his Scientologist evangelism, there has been a call for criminal investigation against Google and YouTube for facilitating neo-Nazi propaganda.

Not just neo-footage, but also vintage footage was uploaded by users, with anti-Semitic videos from 1940′s appearing there as well.

Everything that one might predict happened: in the comments section, most were appalled by the videos, some were neutral, based on educational and documentation reasons, and a few applauded; Google pulled the offending videos at Germany’s request; and nobody except neo-Nazis will complain because, well, nobody likes Nazis.

Al-Qaeda, too, has reportedly been taking advantage of the user-generated video craze by uploading recruiting videos to YouTube. According to this report, one lasted nearly 24 hours before YouTube took it down.

Again, nobody but terrorists are going to speak up for them.

These are extreme examples, but they are precursors to challenges ahead. Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and other companies have already had their run-ins with China and censorship.

Even in America, where freedom of speech is the first among rights, there will be struggles to define its limits, where it is acceptable to speak, and how loudly. But remember this: If speech on the Internet is determined by terms of service agreements set forth by private companies not only beholden to advertisers, partners and shareholders, but also to international pressures, then there will be no real freedom of speech on the Internet.

It begins with AT&T censoring Pearl Jam, Yahoo handing over information to Chinese authorities, Google bending to every country that demands it bend. Net Neutrality isn’t just about gate-keeping, it’s about fundamental rights to speak our minds whether or not others think we should, and about other people not being able to stop us from speaking our minds. But most of all, it’s about the people keeping control of their free-speech area, and keeping it open for debate.    

The Consumerist highlights Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.), who’s taken a hard-line stance against peer-to-peer file sharing, especially in regard to federally funded universities. It just so happens, Sony, Fox, Time Warner, Universal Music, Viacom, and Disney are major campaign contributors.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

Except that Feeney and others are leaning on universities to get better at cracking down on file-sharing on their networks. Otherwise, risk losing funding. He makes the argument that it doesn’t make sense for a Congress that is tough on intellectual property rights to be soft on schools it helps support that violate those rights.

Sigh. Sounds like something straight out of a record company list of talking points, doesn’t it?

Just change that around a bit and you can make a case that university cafeterias shouldn’t have kitchen knives because somebody might use one to stab a coworker. Just because students are using file-sharing systems on university networks, it doesn’t mean they’re doing something illegal, or that the university is causing and/or promoting it.

The Consumerist quotes Greg Jackson of the University of Chicago, who wins the quip of the week:

So long as the right thing remains more daunting, awkward and unsatisfying than the wrong thing, too many people will do the wrong thing.

Remind me to get over to Chicago so I can try and snatch the pebble from Jackson’s hand.

People, at least a fair percentage a fair percentage of the time, do something sketchy, especially at universities, where binge-drinking, promiscuity, and all-around hedonism seem the rule and not the exception.

But do we penalize the educational institution for what the kids will do anyway?

It’s nice to see Feeney is concentrating on redirecting money away from where it’s wasted on forging young minds, and putting it to use on more fruitful pursuits – say, in Baghdad.