As if to ask: "Would we do that to you?"

Maybe it’s because incumbent telecom providers have lost every Net Neutrality argument that they’ve even forsaken the general appearance of "good behavior" for fear of proving the opposition’s points for them.

It’s hard to tell what motivation AT&T and Verizon would have for that. There could be many: they’ve quit arguing and have commenced to doing while they still can; they feel they’ve buried the argument, have won the government, and are therefore immune; or whoever makes and enforces policies isn’t communicating very well the spin-doctors trying sell a much different story.

Who knows? But it wasn’t long ago that the "solution in search of a problem" was relegated to isolated incidents in Canada and Net Neutrality proponents had only fear they could point to. (That wasn’t entirely true, just reviewing – concerned citizens had at least the words from the horse’s mouth to go on…)

Just after AT&T’s Pearl Jam fiasco, where a nice proof of concept was exhibited at the expense of Eddie Vedder’s right to speak, Verizon blames "a dusty policy" for disallowing a Pro-Choice group to send text messages across its system.

Regardless of your stance on that volatile matter, that is Verizon deciding who speaks and who doesn’t.

Call it the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Citing these two instances of censorship, as well as Verizon and AT&T’s close relationship with the National Security Agency (remember, the handing over of private citizen phone records?), Free Press is calling for Congressional hearings.

Which of course, we know from how Congress has dealt with both oil companies and juiced-up baseball pros, means a lot. But at least some feet may be held to a gentle candle flame, you know, for five minutes or so.

Oh well, it’s something, right?

"Phone companies are supposed to deliver our messages, not censor them," said Ben Scott, of Free Press, coordinator of SaveTheInternet.com. "If the phone company can’t tell you what to say on a phone call, then they shouldn’t be able to tell you what to say in a text message, an e-mail, or anywhere else. We can’t trust these corporate gatekeepers. Congress needs to step in immediately to safeguard free speech and the free flow of information."

I hope Ben doesn’t go through AT&T for Internet or mobile phone service. According to the company’s latest Terms of Service, they can disconnect you for talking trash about them if they like.

"The censorship policies of AT&T and Verizon are what we can expect to see time and again with these corporations as gatekeepers," said Josh Silver, executive director of Free Press. "Verizon’s text message ban is the same as Comcast blocking our email or AT&T preventing us from making phone calls. We need to put in place laws that protect our right to speak out on the Internet, on cell phones — everywhere."

Sort of seems that way. And sort of seems like they don’t care if it’s obvious anymore or not.

Google Says It’s Time To Turn Japanese

"We hope policymakers take a careful look at exactly what is now happening overseas, why, and then draw the right conclusions about the steps necessary to bring the benefits of real broadband competition and innovation to all Americans," he concludes at the Google Public Policy Blog, referring to a report appearing in the Washington Post.

The WaPo article detailed that Japanese broadband was up to 30 times faster than the broadband in the United States.

30 times. Now, I’m not going to make a value judgment on this, but, in the America you grew up in, can you remember anything we could stand being second place in?

Okay, hockey and soccer. We didn’t care.

But a decade ago, Japan was struggling to keep up with the US in terms of Internet speed, and now they can watch broadcast quality television over it?

It’s interesting this article came from the Washington Post, too. A year ago, the paper wasn’t so hot on the idea of Net Neutrality. I called them on it, but I don’t think anyone noticed.

Whitt also notes SaveTheInternet.com’s explanation of why Japanese broadband speeds exploded so rapidly:

Less than a decade ago, DSL service in Japan was slower and pricier than in the United States. So the Japanese government mandated open access policies that forced the telephone monopoly to share its wires at wholesale rates with new competitors. The result: a broadband explosion.

Not only did DSL get faster and cheaper in Japan, but the new competition actually forced the creaky old phone monopoly to innovate.

That’s interesting, because the telco and cable company arguments have been exactly the opposite. They argue that any government involvement would stifle innovation and investment, even though a decade of non-involvement and $200 billion of tax-payer handouts have resulted in a duopoly that’s given us, well, about 15th place.

But my favorite part of the WaPo article was this section:

 [Japanese broadband] allows pathologists — using high-definition video and remote-controlled microscopes — to examine tissue samples from patients living in areas without access to major hospitals. Those patients need only find a clinic with the right microscope and an NTT fiber connection.

"Before, we did not have the richness of image detail," Matsuya said, noting that Japan has a severe shortage of pathologists. "With this equipment, I think it is possible to make a definitive remote diagnosis of cancer."

That’s funny to me because I seem to remember representatives of Verizon talking about the "cock-and-bull" and "Chicken Little stories" going around about Net Neutrality and how such government interference would stall or derail access to valuable Internet-based medical services.

It’s been a year and a half since this debate really started to get going, and I’ve seen no argument from the phone and cable side of it that’s held up to scrutiny.

LonelyGirl, Flickr Take Webby Honors

Who’s not on the list is Google, but lets not focus on who dropped the ball most this year, after winning half a dozen last year.

If you’re a David Bowie fan, then you probably already know he sits alongside musician Beck, Internet inventor and evangelist Vint Cerf, Arianna Huffington, "The Simpsons" creator Matt Groening and Virgin Atlantic’s Richard Branson to choose the centennial winners.

Bowie, it just so happens, receives the Webby Lifetime Achievement award, commemorating all those years he was mercifully not making music and, instead, founding Web companies. Bowie launched BowieNet ISP in 1998, followed by UltraStar and BowieArt.

EBay and company president Meg Whitman also received the Lifetime Achievement award "on behalf of the 233 million registered buyers and sellers" on the site. YouTube cofounders Steve Chen and Chad Hurley, each the other’s better half, took the Webby Person of the Year award for "transforming the media landscape and reshaping everything from politics to pop culture.

Just like at the Academy Awards, there is a Best Actor and Best Actress Award. "Ninja" from "Ask a Ninja" took the best actor nod, and Jessica Lee Rose, a.k.a. "lonelygirl15" takes home the best actress award.

Interestingly and correctly, David Michel-Davies, executive director of the Webby Awards, thinks one day we’ll look on these early winners the same way we remember Charlie Chaplin and the Keystone Cops.

"The winners will go down in history as the first stars in a medium that has already radically altered the media and entertainment landscape," said Michel-Davies, executive director of The Webby Awards. "From major networks to independent filmmakers, the diversity of the winners also reflects the Internet’s democratic roots, as well as its star-making power."

Speaking of the Internet’s democratic roots, one of the funnier twists of this year’s awards came in the Activism category, as grassroots Net Neutrality site SaveTheInternet.com received the "People’s Voice Award." The majority of 400,000 voters chose SaveTheInternet.com over Apple’s Green Peace page (the celebrity panel’s choice).

The People’s Voice must have sounded like nails on a chalkboard to Verizon, a sponsor of the Webby Awards, and vehement Net Neutrality opponent. Maybe next year the vote will go to DontSqueezeYourCustomers.org.

A few sites shined with multiple awards. Yahoo’s Flickr and Adobe took home 5 Webbies each; HowStuffWorks won 4; graphic designer Jonathan Yuen grabbed 3; the BBC carried 3 across the Pond; and LinkedIn hooked up for 2.
 

Other winners (Webby/People’s Voice):

1. Best Home/Welcome Page: Sony.com/NYTimes.com
2. Best Navigation/Structure: IKEA/IKEA
3. Best Use of Video/Moving Image: Jonathan Yuen/Adobe CS2.3 – The Creative Mind
4. Best Visual Design – Function: Flickr/Flickr
5. Broadband: Blip.tv/Blip.tv
6. Guides/Ratings/Reviews: Yelp.com/CNet.com
7. Humor: The Onion/The Onion
8. Services: LinkdIn/Gifts.com
9. Travel: Wikitravel/TripAdvisor

Net Neutrality Sponsored By Verizon?

"This vote for SavetheInternet.com is also a vote for the millions of Americans who came online and took action last year to stop phone and cable companies from seizing control of our freedom of choice on the Internet," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, the nonpartisan group that coordinates the SavetheInternet.com Coalition.

"While we’re honored to be recognized for this important work, the fight for Net Neutrality is far from over."

SavetheInternet will be awarded their Webby’s in New York City on June 5. They will receive an award for "Best Activism Web site" and one for "Best Public Service Video" for their "Save the Internet: Independence Day" video.

Both awards are in the category of "People’s Voice", where winners were chosen by votes from around the world.

"Thanks to the efforts of this broad coalition, the issue of Net Neutrality has moved from an obscure technical topic to become the most hotly debated issue concerning the Internet today," said Matt Thompson, director of SavetheInternet.com’s Independence Day video.

"This isn’t just a technical issue involving large companies; it speaks to the democratic values that are at the heart of the American dream."

Sen. Dorgan Praises Net Neutrality Coalition

Dorgan cited Stevens’ role in stonewalling a vote on the issue on the Senate floor last summer, and Whitacre’s expressed intent to develop a tiered Internet.

The North Dakota senator also praised the Free Press’ SaveTheInternet grassroots campaign, which is nominated for a Webby award, to preserve the medium’s open architecture – an architecture that has made it "one of the wonders of the world." Thanks to the coalition, he said, Net Neutrality has moved from an unknown technical issue to on of the predominant debates.

Dorgan believes the Senate is now "developing a consensus" on the issue, as more Washington politicians sign on to his and Sen. Olympia Snowe’s (R-ME) Internet Freedom Preservation Act, a piece of legislation similar to what the FCC required of AT&T in order to merge with Bell South.

“The Internet became a robust engine of economic development by enabling anyone with a good idea to connect to consumers and compete on a level playing field," he said. "The marketplace picked winners and losers, not some central gatekeeper. That freedom — the very core of what makes the Internet what it is today — must be preserved.”

At a year old, SaveTheInternet.com has attracted support from both sides of the political spectrum, small businesses as well as major online corporations like Google, collecting 1.6 million petition signers.

"Pretty much everybody is in favor of Net Neutrality except those running fake grassroots campaigns," said Craig Newmark, founder of the online classifieds site Craigslist.

The "fake" campaigns to which Newmark refers are ones that have had their origins traced back to telecommunications giants like AT&T. The telecommunications and cable industries have been staunch opponents of the Net Neutrality movement, and so have, by default, the members of Congress who rely heavily on them for campaign contributions.

Though Verizon and AT&T have characterized the Net Neutrality movement as one funded by billion-dollar Internet giants like Google and Microsoft, who they say stand to gain most, small businesses and nonprofits alike fear the lack of protection Net Neutrality legislation can offer.

Gary Miracle, owner of NMChili.com and other small retail sites, said that learning of the telcos plans to create a tiered system, where big-dollar companies could pay to have their sites delivered faster than the competition, "scared the bejeezus" of him. Their plans were reminiscent, he said, of the steep cable price increases over the past 20 years.

Paying "100 times" what he’s paying now would "put a real dent into my operation," he said.

But for Michelle Combs, representing the Christian Coalition, lack of Net Neutrality protection carries other concerns. "We have over 100,000 churches in our membership," she said. "Churches rely on the Internet and even have sermons on the Internet. We’re concerned. We’re getting the word out."

Combs said that organizations like hers were slow to adopt the movement because the concept wasn’t easily explained in the beginning. But now that more are beginning to understand the issue better, people are gravitating toward it – especially in light of concern that ISPs could, in theory, block or deteriorate the pathways by which the Christian Coalition spreads its message.

"Our goal is turn Net Neutrality into a true family issue," she said. "We are concerned that if they can control our content, then they can control our mission."

Ben Scott, policy director at FreePress, echoed Combs. "That’s the concern we all share from the content side. We’ve had no gatekeepers. We think that’s the magic of the Internet – an equal platform for democratic communication."

That platform for democratic communication is what propelled the Net Neutrality movement to the attention of American policymakers in the first place.

"What we’ve seen over the last year is nothing short of a grass roots Internet revolution," said Adam Green, Civic Communications Director for MoveOn.org. "Millions derailed a bill in Congress that would have allowed AT&T and Verizon to dictate what websites you open."

Does Net Neutrality Have The Proper Support?

Why? Fear. Narcissism. Ignorance. Politics. Apathy. I am not sure which one, although I do think it is each one. I think that Web 2.0 is afraid to take a stand on Net Neutrality – or join the voice in SaveTheInternet or Pulver’s Save the Net – because it might offend a potential purchaser/corporate overlord. I think they are narcissistic because they just do not care because they think it does not affect them. I call ignorance (or, stupidity) because they do not understand the issue. I cal it politics, because they are playing politics in the flip game. I call it apathy, because I just do not think they care about the issue.

The point is that I searched through Technorati, and could not find the usual Web 2.0 suspects writing, but just pointing people to fun videos that are cutesy; they are not really taking the banner of Net Neutrality.

I have discussed this with a couple of other bloggers – and wonder if Web 2.0 has not rushed to this because they are so caught up with themselves. Do they think that the banners of open source, community Web, and whatever the buzz words du jour are going to save their companies? If you look at the Web 2.0 sites -Facebook, Riya, YouTube, Second Life, Songbird, BitTorrent and others – they are total bandwidth hogs. Look at how much Second Life is growing, to the point that it is holding virtual conferences, virtual concerts. But at least is it suited to find ways around the potential costs of the loss of Net Neutrality, as it already charges for membership.

And, well, since Friday it is even a bigger issue since the House rejected Net Neutrality.

Now, while the big Net companies – MSFT, Google, Yahoo – have been to the hill to fight for Net Neutrality, the other side of the debate has just been as active. But is smarter and better at lobbying. Just imagine if the Web 2.0 companies rallied their users to send a letter or email to their Senators and Congressman. Would not those voices be heard, or am I a little too Mr. Smith Goes To Washington?

While I am neither for nor against Net Neutrality – I think it is inevitable – look at cable and pay TV and how that evolved from regular TV. Think about the history of television. It hit good mass adoption in the 50′s, and then had a nice run through the 70′s and 80′s, when cable came out and offered more premium channels at a price, and then a premiere price of more channels, like HBO and Showtime. People accepted the new tiered television, and have embraced it with a little bit of complaints once in a while.

But, with the Internet, we have not yet hit mass adoption of broadband access. While people are still using dial-up of NetZero and AOL for $10-24/month, are they ready to jump to $40+ a month for DSL or Cable, and then find out that that is just the first level, not the premium Internet that will get them the cool bells and whistles? It is too early, but it is inevitable. The fact is we all want our high, high-broadband access and we will likely pay for it.

As an aside, read these posts from GigaOm/Om Malik, which helped me understand the issue better.

But, the Web 2.0 (relative) silence is both deafening and sad. It’s a see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil issue right now.

Follow-up: I just spoke with Mike Hudack, CEO of Blip.tv, who has been speaking on the issue of Net Neutrality – as part of the panel, and as part of the changes in media, and how without Net Neutrality, his company would not have been able to launch. There are some Web 2.0 companies that are speaking out there – watch the PBS Now episode – but overall, there is too much silence. Mary Hodder also speaks a lot on the issue as well.

|

Add to | DiggThis | Yahoo My Web

Jeremy Pepper is the CEO and founder of POP! Public Relations, a public relations firm based in Arizona, USA.

He authors the popular Musings from POP! Public Relations blog which offers Jeremy’s opinions and views – on public relations, publicity and other things.