January 2014

[Commentary] Randall Stephenson sounded like anything but a rapacious monopolist about to squeeze billions in new revenue out of his Internet services thanks to the end of network neutrality. "The industry has come a long way since then," the AT&T CEO said about a Federal appeals court ruling which suggested telecom companies could demand higher fees from bandwidth-intensive content providers like Netflix, Amazon, or Google. He was responding to an analyst during his company's quarterly results conference. "In the last couple of years, the industry has worked and agreed to a framework for Net Neutrality. So the court order really changed nothing." Why so conciliatory in what should have been a moment of triumph? Perhaps it is because Stephenson knows that for AT&T and its telecom peers to begin exploiting this potentially huge new revenue opportunity, they'll have to overcome a much bigger challenge than the Federal courts or regulators. Actually two challenges: Apple and Google. The implicit threat behind all this activity is that any move by the likes of AT&T, Verizon, or Comcast to throttle or charge more for Google services like YouTube will result in an all-out war. Apple hasn't yet threatened to go down this road, but it certainly has the sort of cash hoard to participate in the fun if it wants to.

[Chip Bayers is a journalist covering technology and business]

[Commentary] I'm relieved that network neutrality's opponents have finally come clean. Sort of. For years, a lineup of phone and cable industry mouthpieces had called network neutrality "a solution in search of a problem." The principle that prevents online censorship and blocking by service providers is irrelevant, they claimed, as these companies would never lift a finger to harm the open Internet. But then they changed their tune.

Especially since January’s federal appeals court ruling overturning the Net Neutrality rules -- phone and cable company proxies are saying that the problem does exist, but that it's not really a problem after all. "Payola (paying radio stations directly for extra airplay) ... is frequently derided by those who misunderstand it, but it actually helps new artists break through," argue Berin Szoka and Geoffrey Manne in a Wired commentary. "Sponsored data and other prioritization arrangements on the Internet are just a further extension of this." (To Szoka and Manne's credit, they do run a disclaimer at the end of the article. The writers apparently receive their own payola, in the form of checks from network providers.)

In any case, the new industry rhetoric assumes three things:

1. Giving ISPs the right to block and filter Internet content is a good thing.
2. The whole network is simply a business model; one that's ripe for exploitation by access providers.
3. Internet users should simply trust companies like Verizon, AT&T and Comcast to protect the open Internet.

That point one directly contradicts point three is cause for concern. The debate against Net Neutrality is filled with such inconsistency.

[Timothy Karr is Senior Director of Strategy, Free Press]

[Commentary] The open Internet has provided people of color and other marginalized groups an unprecedented opportunity to tell their own stories and to organize for racial and social justice. Several advocacy groups have used the open Internet to organize online campaigns to protest against racism, hate speech and unfair treatment of immigrants. But this may all come to an end.

On Jan 14, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that Internet service providers (ISPs) such as Verizon and AT&T can censor, block and interfere with Web traffic and content online. With Verizon’s triumph, there’s nothing stopping ISPs from becoming our Internet overlords. “Black folks' ability to be heard is now in real danger,” said Rashad Robinson, the executive director of Color of Change, in a statement. “Our communities rely on the Internet to speak without a corporate filter, to access information and connect to the world.” Jessica Gonzalez, executive vice president of the National Hispanic Media Coalition, added that the ruling curtails the ability of members of her community to fight “discrimination, tell (their) own stories fairly and accurately, organize and even earn a living.” Others say the ruling limits access to educational opportunities. For too many US households, the library is the only place to get high-speed Internet access, to look for jobs and to access other information that is relevant to their lives. By threatening the access of communities of color to the information they need to participate fully in our society, the court’s decision reinforces the nation’s media inequality. People of color own only 3 percent of the nation’s commercial TV stations and 8 percent of commercial radio outlets. According to the FCC’s ownership records, the figure for TV does not even include black owners, since there are none. These communities’ lack of wealth due to our country’s history of discrimination is a primary reason few broadcast stations are owned by people of color. To the extent that they are unable to speak for themselves, people of color are often subjected to stereotypical portrayal in the mainstream media. The court’s latest decision will further restrict the ability of people of color to tell their own stories and challenge prejudiced narratives.

[Joseph Torres is senior external affairs director for the media reform group Free Press]

Aereo, the online-television company that’s battling broadcasters in the Supreme Court, said its service has hit the limits of its capacity in New York City and is sold out for now.

The service will be reopened to new subscribers once it gets more capacity, Aereo Chief Executive Officer Chet Kanojia said. “Our team has been working overtime to add more capacity in our existing markets,” said Virginia Lam, an Aereo spokeswoman. “As soon as additional capacity is added, new consumers will be notified that they can sign up and create an Aereo account.”