There’s an infamous quote from Smith in 2006, which was unearthed by TechDirt, and while it reads like a vote for an open, non-regulated Internet, the statement is much more self-serving than that. The quote in question:

“I want a vibrant Internet just like they do,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. “Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it…I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet.”

As TechDirt points out, Smith’s position changed as his donations from the entertainment industry increased, and while that’s incredibly valid, it should also be pointed out that the one of the primary reasons Smith was against regulating the Internet in 2006 was to reject the idea of net neutrality.

Smith, instead, preferred the Republican-backed Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act over net neutrality.

In essence, Smith didn’t want the Internet regulated by the Obama administration, and while the entertainment industry money no doubt greased the wheels for his stance on SOPA, his 2006 statements come across as partisan politics, instead of protecting the nature of the Internet.

For further insight into this dilemma, check out the comments from a Breitbart TV piece. Statements like:

Here’s a thought…maybe since obummer and the socialist have used the internet to over through governments, they want to use net neutrality to make sure they control the internet so nobody over throughs their nwo.

And:

Steve sure helped clarify Net Neuter for me. The traffic jam analogy was very good, and how EVIL corporations like Google that are *Okay for the libtarded to operate, potentially unhindered is now made crystal clear for me.

Help prove the abject ignorance that surrounds the topic. Yes, there are legitimate criticisms of how the FCC modeled their approach to net neutrality, but the concept is a vital one, especially for those of us who do not want to see Internet service provision become an offshoot of cable television packages.

Or those of us who don’t want corporate influence to determine when, where, how, and why we use the Internet.

With that in mind, the news that President Obama will veto any repeal of net neutrality should be welcomed with open arms from those of us who truly want a free and open Internet. Currently, a group of Republican senators are working hard to remove the bill from the books, following the lead of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The Hill explains:

The House approved a resolution to repeal the rules in April. The Senate version is sponsored by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) and has an additional 42 Republican co-sponsors. It has no Democratic co-sponsors.

For an extended look at Hutchinson’s misguided approach to Internet legislation, take a look at this gem:

And that’s where Obama’s veto hammer comes into play. The Hill has a quote from the White House, explaining their position quite clearly:

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy — an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open,” the White House said.

It should be noted that Obama’s list of donors include Time-Warner and he has rubbed shoulders both AT&T and Verizon. Nevertheless, at least in the case of net neutrality, Obama hasn’t let these companies influence his stance.

Now, in regards to PROTECT-IP and other related legislative pieces, perhaps, but not with net neutrality, something his veto talk should indicate quite clearly.

While this was expected, the reason(s) the company offers for its attempted block is incredibly laughable, and well, false. Before that, let’s recap the FCC’s version of Net Neutrality, something that was officially filed on September 23, 2011. The concept is focused on three simple tenets:

i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;

ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and

iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

Again, it’s surprising how simply effective the FCC can be when the collective actually tries. These standards are simple in concept and execution, although, some groups weren’t happy with the FCC’s apparent blind eye towards the mobile industry. To this writer, that’s another story for another day, because home-based Internet use needs to be protected as well.

Too bad Verizon doesn’t think so.

While discussing their lawsuit, a Verizon lawyer offered this stream of useless information as the company’s reason for the attempted block:

“We are deeply concerned by the FCC’s assertion of broad authority to impose potentially sweeping and unneeded regulations on broadband networks and services and on the Internet itself,” said Michael Glover, Verizon’s general counsel. “We believe this assertion of authority is inconsistent with the statute and will create uncertainty for the communications industry, innovators, investors and consumers.”

So an open Internet disrupts innovation? One wonders how Google would respond to such nonsense. Or the creators of YouTube. Or Yahoo. Or Facebook. Or Twitter. All of these ubiquitous services were successfully developed under an open net understanding, but for some reason, Verizon wants us to believe the opposite is true.

Which means, Verizon’s reasons for wanting to block net neutrality are absolutely false. Verizon is simply trying to misguidedly justify why it wants to regulate the Internet for its customers. Verizon wants to be able to pick and choose what content it gives preferential treatment to, and the FCC’s rules don’t allow for them to do so. Who knows? Maybe the United States government will do what’s right and allow the FCC to, you know, do the job it was created for.

But then again, when you understand Verizon has already won a case against the FCC over the same subject, it’s doubtful true net neutrality will be coming to the United States anytime soon. Not as long as the corporations are allowed to have as much influence as they do now.

I suppose the FCC should be commended for going forward with the concept, as watered down as their version is, but there’s a real sense that whatever version the United States receives will have the fingerprints of AT&T, Verizon, Time-Warner and any other powerful telecom entity in the United States all over what gets adopted. Considering AT&T’s burning love for capping its Internet customers, as well as their oft-discussed political influence via the purchase of various politicians, and the Supreme Court’s previous acquiescence to Verizon over the FCC, and it’s easy to see why this particular writer isn’t holding his breath for true net neutrality in the United States.

Editorials aside, the FCC has officially laid down the soon-to-be cast aside guidelines for what net neutrality adherence would mean in the United States. The rules, courtesy of an FCC pdf, are as follows:

i. Transparency. Fixed and mobile broadband providers must disclose the network management practices, performance characteristics, and terms and conditions of their broadband services;

ii. No blocking. Fixed broadband providers may not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices; mobile broadband providers may not block lawful websites, or block applications that compete with their voice or video telephony services; and

iii. No unreasonable discrimination. Fixed broadband providers may not unreasonably discriminate in transmitting lawful network traffic.

These “three basic rules” should be the backbone of any Internet network — in a perfect world, anyway — but we already know that AT&T and Verizon oppose these rules, thanks to their desire to turn the Internet into a 21st century cable television subscription package, and when you consider the sway these corporate entities have over the very government that supposedly backs the FCC, you can see why it’s hard to be optimistic about net neutrality being truly adopted in the United States.

With that in mind, at least the FCC is giving it the old college try. These net neutrality provisions are scheduled to become active rules on November, 20th of this year, but it’s doubtful these rules go unchallenged by the corporate masters who rule the telecommunications industry.

Thanks to various reports, word is Comcast is blocking access to The Pirate Bay, perhaps the most outspoken, defiant bittorrent site out there. While this writer isn’t subjected to Comcast’s iron rule, I can’t confirm or deny Comcast’s approach, but there are a number of publications that can. Over at Techland, Doug Aamoth confirms the active denial:

I’m a Comcast subscriber and I can report that the site is inaccessible for me where I am in Boston at the moment.

TorrentFreak goes a little further:

Several tests and numerous user reports reveal that Comcast subscribers from all across the United States are unable to connect to The Pirate Bay. The traceroute from Comcast connections stops at thepiratebay.piratpartiet.se, as it’s supposed to, but The Pirate Bay website does not appear.

And on the reddit thread, well, if an active Internet forum could have all of Comcast pilloried, we’d no doubt see Brian Roberts walking through the town center in stocks while the onlookers threw rotten fruit and vegetables at him.

An example of the average reddit member’s thought process concerning Comcast:

Well. F**k comcast, then. [edit added]

However, there are some measured responses as well, like this one from user bazhip:

I can still access it through a proxy, but I feel that I should not have to. If Comcast is actively blocking it, I have a large problem with that. I don’t feel like using Tor whenever I want to get on there. Demonoid is nice, but not a big enough selection. I called Comcast to see what they had to say, and they told me that everything was fine on their end and it was not being blocked, but who knows. Minnesota here.

With all of the above in mind, it’s pretty clear something is going on in relation to Comcast allowing its customers to access the Pirate Bay. The question now becomes what prompted such action? Is such action even legal, because, as pointed out in the lead, net neutrality measures are still an active part of Internet service provision, Republican backlash be damned.

Granted, net neutrality may not remain in place, but currently, it is. With that in mind, is Comcast simply ignoring these rules in favor of protecting those who are charged with “protecting” intellectual properties? Should they face an attempt at punishment from the FCC or does the new appointment of Meredith Attwell Baker give them even more protection — not that they really needed it, seeing how the Supreme Court has already sided with them once already?

Is this how the fight against file sharing should be fought, with ISPs doing the work of true legal entities, or does the infrastructure of the Internet demand ISPs get involved? Should Comcast be in the business of denying the wishes of its customers even if they plan to conduct illegal activity? Should a liquor store not sell alcoholic beverages to people who might drunk drive?

For what it’s worth, Comcast denies they are blocking access to The Pirate Bay. In an email response to WebProNews, Charlie Douglas, Senior Director of Corporate Communications, says:

We’re not blocking PirateBay and reports online indicate users from several ISPs around the world are affected.

Does this change your perspective? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Lead image courtesy of Deviant Art member, keerochee.

Berners-Lee’s words concerning web access raised a couple of eyebrows, and definitely raised the interest of this writer.

“Access to the Web is now a human right” he continues, “It’s possible to live without the Web. It’s not possible to live without water. But if you’ve got water, then the difference between somebody who is connected to the Web and is part of the information society, and someone who (is not) is growing bigger and bigger.”

Berners-Lee’s quote certainly adds an interesting thought to how we perceive the world wide web. Has the web manifested to such a point that we believe it to be a need in our society? This led me to think of my life, and where I would be without access to the internet. It was a pretty scary exercise.

His quote also brings to mind the net neutrality debate. It strikes to the very heart of the matter, exposing the debate between the opposing sides. If web access is a right, then should providers be allowed to control it as they see fit, or should regulation be put into to place to allow our right to remain unfettered?

Along with his comparisons to water, Berners-Lee stated how ISPs should have less control over how users access the web. He also warned of mobile apps, and how they should be “web apps” which are accessed, allowing the open web to stay relevant.

Do you think that net neutrality has gotten too political? Let us know why or why not.

According to John Bergmayer, a staff attorney with Public Knowledge, net neutrality is “not supposed to be something for the Washington chattering classes to gossip about.” Instead, he stated, “It’s supposed to be a simple set of rules that allows innovators to innovate and creators to create.”

To complicate matters even further, the U.S. House of Representatives recently voted to retract the net neutrality rules that the FCC adopted in December. However, in order for the rules to be completely reversed, the Senate and the President would have to be in favor of repealing the rules as well.

There is also a lot of conflict around ISPs and the lack of options for consumers. Bergmayer explained that 80 percent of Americans that have access to broadband services only have, at most, 2 broadband options to choose from. Millions of other Americans only have 1 choice in a broadband provider.

As a result, ISPs are not forced to compete in prices and services, which means that prices are often high and services are less than satisfactory. But, ISPs have their own concern since many of them also provide content services. They, in turn, fear the rise of services such as Netflix.

In the end, the fight is about the future of the Internet, media, and communications. The big question is where the government fits in with determining these outcomes.

Fortunately, consumers can share their opinion too. Because the FCC often takes comments on important issues, Bergmayer encourages people to participate. In addition, he suggests that individuals call their Congressmen and women to express their beliefs.

“It’s not just about big companies like Google fighting big companies like Comcast. It’s really about the individual… out there throughout America,” he said.

He further pointed out that Washington, DC listens to those who speak the loudest, especially on “political football” issues such as with net neutrality.

Are you letting your voice be heard on these issues?

Worse yet, apparently, he/she doesn’t seem to mind one bit. From AT&T’s perspective, their customers want the higher bandwidth users to pay more, therefore, “justifying” the upcoming cap rule.

Forgive the aside here, but why is it up the heavy bandwidth user to foot the bill for the mysterious cost of bandwidth usage when the company’s infrastructure may not be adequate enough to handle their rapidly increasing customer base? As more and more users enjoy the conveniences and pleasures of streaming video in high definition, high-end PC gaming, and other robust Internet tasks, the company needs to adapt in order to support this growth, instead of resorting to punishing its power users, or “hogs” for lack of a better term.

Another consideration is, as pointed out by Wired.com, there isn’t a great deal of information concerning the congestion issues these caps are supposed to prevent. In other words, there’s no proof AT&T or Comcast even need these caps to begin with.

Different subjects for a different day, apparently. As for the upcoming AT&T cap, the details are as follows: DSL customers will have a 150 gigabyte per month usage limit. Those that exceed the cap will be penalized an extra $10 for every 50 gigabytes they go over.

Needless to say, reaction to AT&T’s wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing approach to such a sensitive subject has set off a firestorm of reaction around the Internet. Endgadget’s post has over 3000 comments and Reddit’s is somewhere around the 600 mark by now. As one might expect, there aren’t many supporters of the upcoming cap.

Though the vitriol is fast and fierce, the first comment on Reddit’s thread stood out to this writer:

“I love it when people who use the services they paid for and were promised are referred to as “hogs”. Kills me every time.“

(via enderpanda)

Too bad such negative reaction won’t impact AT&T’s decision in anyway, shape or form. At this point, only a mass exodus would reverse this particular course. That being said, it would be nice to actually meet some of these ubiquitous customers AT&T keeps referring to.

The new cap makes its long-awaited debut on May 2nd, in what will no doubt be a red letter day… at least for AT&T

He went on to say that he finds it “really surpsing” that when he talks to different groups, that there aren’t more people screaming on the part of all of the people who are in various ways – creating, thinking, and using the Internet. “I’m not saying we should overthrow the government,” he noted, but seemed to call for more vocal action from the people.

He took a subtle jab at the Wall Street Journal’s editorial policy, calling it “wacky” (his second jab at News Corp. – following comments about The Daily). He described the WSJ’s stance of it being “a terrible thing” to have rules and laws for net neutrality, on the basis that it would “impede investment”.

What will happen, Diller said, is that they’re going to have to build more capacity to accommodate the increase in online video, and they will charge for usage (which he said he thinks is appropriate), but the people who control the broadband will say that they feel it’s their right to say when they think entities are using too much, so they should pay if they’re pushing the bandwidth out. “It would be like asking a toaster to pay for the electricity,” he said.

He said he doesn’t think it would be the death of entrepreneurship, but that what would be terrible is that the Internet would follow the pattern of other communications media from the last hundred years – in the hands of the very few, where editorial politics come into play – and whoever can pay the most wins.

Rather than sugarcoat it or spin it in anyway, I’ll simply embed the statement from FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (Via Brian Stelter), and you can make your own decision about whether it goes too far or doesn’t go far enough:
Net neutrality statement by Julius Genachowski, the FCC chair, on Dec. 21, 2010  

If you look at a Twitter search on #FCC, you’ll see a pretty good mix of commentary. Politico has a pretty good article outlining the political struggle on this issue. 

We thought there would be more from Genachowski on the FCC’s Open Internet blog, but the blog appears to be down. 

"The open Internet is a crucial American marketplace, and I believe that it is appropriate for the FCC to safeguard it by adopting an Order that will establish clear rules to protect consumers’ access," said FCC Commissioner Mignon L. Clyburn ahead of today’s meeting. "The Commission has worked tirelessly to offer a set of guidelines that, while not as strong as they could be, will nonetheless protect consumers as they explore, learn, and innovate online."

What do you think of the FCC’s adoption? Share your thoughts in the comments.