A bipartisan majority of the Federal Communications Commission has reportedly voted to punish Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, for blocking consumers' access to the open Internet.
According to press reports, Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein have voted with Chairman Kevin Martin for an "enforcement order" that would require Comcast to stop blocking and publicly disclose its network management practices. The order is adopted once all five commissioners have cast their votes.
Our friends at the FCC, Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein, helped form part of a 3-2 majority to punish Comcast. The FCC is a regulatory body run by 5 commissioners, 3 Republicans and 2 Democrats. Like many agencies, the party that holds the White House holds the majority on the FCC. Kevin Martin, the Republican chair, voted with us on this one because he is terrified of Ed Markey, Congressional oversight, and the millions of people watching him.
It's a significant precedent for this body to punish a large corporation. The FCC just does't do that, if you know what I mean. And the commission did it under Republican leadership, so just wait until there's a Democrat in the White House, one who is actually with us on a universal internet.
I've spent a bunch of time bashing telephone companies over net neutrality, wiretapping, and just generally being horrible control freaks. Cable companies though are just as unethical and bent on controlling access to content. Harold Feld is bringing word that the FCC is about to rule on regulating cable monopolies to force them to include more independent and minority-owned stations.
The agency is also preparing to adopt a rule this month that would make it easier for independent programmers, which are often small operations, to lease access to cable channels.
And Mr. Martin has been circulating a plan that would use the finding on cable television dominance to set a cap on the size of the nation's largest cable companies so that no company could control more than 30 percent of the market.
When cable was deregulated in 1984, few believed it would become the dominant way that Americans would receive video. In case it did, to prevent cable from having ridiculous market power, Congress wrote that if 70% of Americans subscribed to cable, the FCC would regulate cable in the name of diversity. Cable is fighting tooth and nail, with both anti-regulatory arguments and disputes over the number of Americans who have cable (though of course they won't release numbers of their own subscribers).
It's a complete bad faith assault from the cable industry so Time Warner and Comcast can get bigger and control more content.
The politics here are interesting, and winnable. FCC Commissioners Kevin Martin and Michael Copps want to regulate the industry, but Democrat Jonathan Adelstein and Republican Deborah Tate are unsure, and Robert McDowell is opposed. This is the single best opportunity to break up the power of the cable companies and get more progressive content on TV.
I'll be watching to see how Adelstein votes. FCC politics is byzantine, but it's not always partisan and the amount of power they wield over the information channels Americans have is simply immense.
Here's part two of my interview with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. In this clip, Copps discusses the Pearl Jam censorship incident in the context of net neutrality. He points out that without net neutrality protections, there is nothing stopping AT&T from engaging in political censorship over the internet at large, and that network companies are only on their 'best behavior' because of the large public debate over net neutrality.
I went to the FCC for the first time today to interview Michael Copps, one of five commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission. I have a bunch of clips to put up. We veered from the Pearl Jam incident to the history of net neutrality to the Wall Street Journal takeover to the role of the media reform citizens movement in changing how the FCC makes policy.
The first clip I'm putting up is on the history of net neutrality. One of the key claims made the telecom companies is that the internet has never been regulated, and that net neutrality is a 'problem in search of a solution'. In fact, this isn't true. Net neutrality was the law of the land until 2005, but how the FCC gutted it is an important story as well as a demonstration of the clever ways that right-wing regulators unmake public policy through obscure procedural maneuvers.
Copps brings us through the details and confirms that net neutrality was the law of the land until 2005, and that the internet emerged under a neutral regulatory regime that is now gone.
Down the other road lies a FCC that, while it celebrates the Internet, sits idly by as broadband providers amass the power and technical ability to dictate where you can go and what you can do on the Internet. This FCC would see no public interest harms when providers set up gated communities and toll booths on the Internet, altering the openness that has characterized this medium and endangering the principle of non-discrimination. Make no mistake-the practical effect of what is being proposed by some network operators is to invert the democratic genius of the Internet. And these folks have friends in high places.
FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, at YearlyKos
At YearlyKos, I met FCC Commissioner Michael Copps. He's an amazing man, but he told us something very disturbing. He thinks that the signs are out there that the FCC is getting ready to loosen media ownership rules against the will of the public. They have already done this with the internet, and Congress has not acted to remedy the problem.
A few days ago, the problem because crystal clear. AT&T censored political speech over streaming video by Pearl Jam at a concert. This was overt censorship of political speech. With the flurry of outrage, it's increasingly clear that corporate control over our media system is not only a huge problem but a well-understood problem by the public. AT&T is trying to pass this off as a simple mistake, though there's no particular reason to trust what the company has to say, and Wired is reporting that the company may also have censored political speech by the Flaming Lips and the John Butler Trio. But whether this is a mistake or not is not really important. The question is whether there should be a gatekeeper in front of what we have the right to say. And the answer to that question is obviously no.
I'm going to reprint Michael Copps's full speech below. It's a clear warning of some important regulatory changes that are underway right now at the FCC. We're going to need millions to speak out on this.
I'm going to this panel tomorrow at 2pm, with Commissioner Copps of the FCC. He's one of the most powerful decision-makers in media policy, who can actually address the structural problems. In a Democratic administration, he'll be even more important.
I'm increasingly impressed by our ability as activists to work with internal allies in corporate America, Congress,, labor, think tanks, and within regulatory agencies. I expect a lot of this kind of networking at Yearlykos to take place.
Anyway, if you're coming to Yearlykos tomorrow, come to this panel. If you're not but have questions, leave them in the comments and I'll put them to Copps.
FCC's Michael Copps to Speak at YearlyKos
Commissioner will discuss future of the media with netroots activists and media reformers
Chicago -- As part of this week's YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, Free Press is convening a roundtable discussion with FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on the future of the media -- from broadcast to broadband.
WHAT: "A View from Washington: Winning a Better Media for Everyone"
WHEN: Thursday, Aug. 2, 2:00 p.m.
WHERE: YearlyKos Convention, McCormick Place Convention Center, Room 401 a-c, Chicago
WHO: FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, media reform advocates, netroots activists
Commissioner Copps will explore how the netroots can work with Washington policymakers and public interest advocates to create more democratic media polices. His remarks will be followed by a moderated question-and-answer session.
STATE BLOGS
