Cecilia Kang at the Washington Post has a great profile of Ben Scott, one of the key strategists on our side behind the net neutrality fight. He's a lobbyist for Free Press, and the article is really good at painting a picture of a guy whose soft-spoken manner and wildly brilliant sense of strategy has actually saved the internet.
Although Free Press has generated buzz for its aggressive and sometimes controversial tactics online, its ringleader in Washington is an unlikely crusader. A soft-spoken 30-year-old PhD candidate, Ben Scott has become an operator in multibillion-dollar battles involving corporate titans, regulators and consumers debating policies over who controls the media and the Internet.
"There have been policy moments in the past when the market has been shaped by decisions made in Washington -- radio in the 1930s, television in the 1950s and cable in the 1980s. That moment is now for the Internet," said Scott, who runs a nine-member office.
Working mostly behind the scenes, Scott has been a driving force for "net neutrality," a concept that in policy terms has come to mean enforcement of open access online, so cable and telecom operators cannot block or delay content that travels over their networks. In a complaint filed at the FCC last November, Scott and his staff called for action against Comcast, which admitted it slowed content over its network involving the BitTorrent file-sharing site.
If you're reading this post, there is a good chance that you're aware of the battle over "Net Neutrality" in 2006. That showdown in the Congress over the future of the Internet pitted telephone and cable companies against a strange-bedfellows coalition of consumer groups, political activists, technology companies, and millions of everyday people. This grassroots effort ended in a draw - which in these political times is a big win for the little guy.
That victory should inspire us to think big. The legislative fight in 2006 was really the beginning of a paradigm-shifting moment in U.S. media policy. As all media technologies (text, audio, video) rapidly converge onto an Internet platform, the legal framework we've used (which is largely based around different technologies) is no longer functional. The impending demise of the old model has triggered major changes as each industry jockeys for the most advantageous position in the new regulatory universe. The Net Neutrality debate brought the public into this arcane but incredibly important process for the first time.
But Net Neutrality is not an end in itself. It is a beginning. It is the fundamental principle that underlies open networks like the Internet. It must be the cornerstone of any future communications policy that serves the goals of free speech and free markets. But it is not, by itself, a solution to our policy problems. Net neutrality cannot, by itself, close the digital divide and bring high-speed, low-cost broadband to all Americans. For that, we need a genuine national broadband policy....
Powerful Democratic Congressman Ed Markey is holding a hearing on Wednesday titled 'Wireless Innovation and Consumer Protection'. But really, the hearing should be titled 'the iPhone Hearing', because that's what this is about. The launch of the iPhone is not just a consumer landmark, it's a significant moment in internet politics. Working Assets has already pointed this out with an action campaign, and their CEO Michael Kieschnick has a thoughtful post on the reactionary nature of the iPhone's locked in contract with AT&T.
Rather than explaining the situation myself, I'm going to turn to an expert, Ben Scott, the policy director for Free Press. Ben's a public interest lobbyist, and someone who has taught me a tremendous amount about telecom policy. Right now, there are a few confluent events that are inspiring a lot of debate around the public airwaves, and it all hinges on the iPhone and its immense significance.
I taped Ben's explanation of the situation in his office earlier today.
If you enjoyed this video, I'll try to tape other lobbyists and organizers in DC representing our interests. And don't forget to send a message to the FCC.
UPDATE: There's a potentially very important story out on the 700 spectrum auction, the massive airwaves being auctioned off this summer. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is reportedly circulating rules that would force an open wireless network for the spectrum being sold off. If this is true, and I'm working to verify the story with some sources, it means a number of things. Well first and foremost, it means that we took an unexpected big step towards an open internet. Two, our grassroots pressure, combined with the business pressure, really showed regulators that there was a hunger for a different type of communications structure, and they are responsive. Three, someone must have convinced Kevin Martin that an open network is a profitable and sustainable model for business operators. Once again, I'm working to verify this, but it could be a very big deal.
STATE BLOGS
