(photo: NontrivialMatt

It begins:

Starting May 2, AT&T will begin implementing monthly usage limits for its U-Verse and DSL users and charge $10 fees every time a customer exceeds the cap.

According to Broadband Reports, DSL customers will have a 150GB monthly usage limit, while U-Verse subscribers will get 250GB. AT&T will impose the $10 fee for every 50GB over the limit a customer uses.

This is a pretty large cap, but it’s clearly designed to profit from high-bandwidth users. There’s nothing inherently wrong with charging bandwidth hogs for their capacity; plenty of businesses charge on such a consumption model. The issue comes when this directly affects the ability of video-streaming sites like Netflix to carry out their business model, because of the cost-prohibitive nature of the service for individual users. Just three hours of HD video on Netflix would wipe out the entire 150GB monthly limit, for example. And at that point, AT&T comes back to those who want to watch movies on the Web with their own proprietary service. Before long, companies who want to deliver high-quality broadband video to audiences who want it will see their business models shattered and will be forced to close their doors. And only AT&T and its telecom friends will be around. You don’t have to precisely discriminate against competing sites to practice discrimination.

AT&T is likely to get away with tiered pricing; it’s allowed for in the fake net neutrality rules put out by the FCC, as far as I can tell, and the last time they tried this, consumer complaints succeeded only on the grounds of false advertising, that they were promised unlimited usage. Comcast already has usage fees.

Critics denounced the move:

S. Derek Turner, research director at media reform group Free Press, called AT&T’s most recent venture “a poor solution to an unproven problem.” The move will have “a chilling effect on economic growth and innovation online,” Turner said. “When ISPs force their customers to watch the meter, experimentation, innovation and business will suffer.” Turner also said that AT&T’s overage plan is punitive considering it “bears no discernible relation to underlying costs, which are estimated to be mere pennies per gigabyte.”

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) also expressed his worry over the potential repercussions of AT&T’s usage caps. “I am concerned that charging more for increased usage would raise prices for some consumers and potentially lead to lower broadband adoption levels,” Markey told The Hill. “This would undermine our broadband goals as outlined in the National Broadband Plan while undercutting our global competitiveness, and I will be closely monitoring this decision.”

Come back to the Internet in about five years and see how it’s “progressed.” My guess would be, not far.

In a press briefing on the situation in Egypt (and probably his last briefing ever), Robert Gibbs made a stunning, but important statement:

We believe in the basket of individual freedoms includes the freedom to access the Internet and the freedom to use social networking sites.

Gibbs did not say (and none of the reporters asked) whether this includes access to the Wikileaks site. Or whether it includes access to the Internet at broadband speeds.

Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL)

No member of Congress is beyond reproach. Every member of Congress should be open scrutiny of their record, and every member should be judged by his or her record. It’s critical to an effective democracy.

Last week, Congressman Bobby Rush’s record of carrying water for big telecom corporations — at the expense of the communities he represents — came back to haunt him when he lost his bid to become Ranking Member of the subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet. Rep. Rush had been almost certain to get the position until more than 16,000 ColorOfChange.org members opposed his candidacy because of his record of advocating against net neutrality.

Now, Congressman Rush is trying to change the subject. But it won’t work — not now, at a time when a politician’s statements and voting record are readily available for the public to see and evaluate.

Corporate money has a huge influence over politicians and the policy they make — and it’s a major problem for our democracy. Black politicians are no exception. For years, corporate interests have carefully sought support and loyalty from Black leaders with carefully targeted donations to campaign committees and non-profit organizations. The blessing of Black politicians and organizations can — and too often does — give corporate America the cover they need to ruthlessly pursue their interests at the expense of ours.

We started ColorOfChange.org to make government more accountable to the interests of African-Americans. But we will only get so far if we have a double standard for that accountability — one for Black politicians and another for everyone else. The truth is that on certain key issues, there are a significant number of Black leaders and organizations that are beholden to corporate interests, and act against their constituents’ interests because of it. To give anyone a pass on those issues, even if they have been great on many others, would only weaken our efforts.

Earlier this week, Rep. Rush attacked ColorOfChange.org with a circular argument that said we are undermining Black interests by challenging him. But he has never addressed the substance of our opposition to his now-failed candidacy to be the Ranking Member of the subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet: his vocal opposition to net neutrality.

Instead, in his blog post on Monday, Rep. Rush tried to make this story about Bobby Rush vs. James Rucker — ignoring the 16,000 ColorOfChange.org members who questioned Rep. Rush’s fitness for a particular job.  . . .He repeated his accusation that ColorOfChange.org is “beholden to Silicon Valley” without presenting a shred of evidence, ignoring our campaign against Google for their actions against net neutrality. He continued to dismiss net neutrality as unimportant (without once mentioning it) by saying that he will remain focused on addressing “real issues of concern to African American online users.”

But net neutrality is an issue of vital concern to African-Americans. Our ability to compete on a level playing field and have our voices heard on the Internet is unmatched in any other media platform — and it is under dire threat if the big telecom companies get their way and do away with net neutrality. Rep. Rush wants a pass on this issue, but we can’t give it to him, even if he has been a strong advocate for Black people on many other issues. With their new majority, Republicans will do everything they can to destroy net neutrality, and we can’t afford to give a powerful position with authority over this issue to someone who will help them do it.

It bears repeating why our members were so vocal in their opposition to Rush leading Democrats on the subcommittee which represents the first line of defense against Republican attacks on net neutrality. Rush has repeatedly taken donations from large telecom companies — and his record on net neutrality seems to reflect that relationship. From my blog post last week (to which Rush responded this week):

• In 2006, Rush voted against Rep. Edward Markey’s amendment to the COPE Act, which would have enshrined the FCC’s net neutrality principles into law. In stating his opposition, Rush infamously described net neutrality as “a solution in search of a problem.” [a statement that he and his staff have repeated]
• In 2010 the congressman signed a letter circulated by Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) that assailed net neutrality, focusing on the FCC’s efforts to reclassify broadband Internet. Green’s effort, which netted the support of 74 Democrats, helped discourage the FCC from pursuing more stringent net neutrality rules.

This week’s blog post marks the second time Rush has attacked ColorOfChange.org in response to our criticism of his record on net neutrality, while each time failing to address the substance of what we’ve said. And he continues to tout support for his candidacy for leadership on the Internet subcommittee from a list of Black organizations, while failing to note that the most prominent, if not all of those organizations have also received financial support from big telecom companies.

Rep. Rush did begin to change his tune late last year (under pressure from our campaign against his candidacy) saying that he’d defend the FCC’s recent rules to protect net neutrality (which are too weak to do the job properly). If this represents a shift in Rep. Rush’s position on net neutrality — after hearing from thousands of people — we welcome it. Based on his record, however, all indications are that Rep. Rush would have used a leadership position on the Internet subcommittee to help undermine net neutrality — and it’s a good thing that Democrats on the subcommittee listened to ColorOfChange.org members’ voices and chose to elect Anna Eshoo, a strong advocate for net neutrality, as their leader. Eshoo is already demonstrating that she will use her post on the subcommittee to push for strong open Internet protections — shortly after winning the position, she called out the FCC for failing to adequately protect net neutrality.

The fact that our members’ voices prevailed in this campaign should serve as a strong warning to any politician or organization, of any race, who is beholden to corporate interests on any issue, and acts against the interests of their constituents on that issue: It won’t work to run from your record, to attempt to shield yourself with your political allies and your reputation, or even to hide behind a genuinely strong record on other issues. The people you serve will know what you are doing, they will join together to hold you accountable, and they can win.

(photo: Steve Rhodes)

You can say that the entire goal of Julius Genachowski’s pretend plan for net neutrality was to devise something that the telecoms could live with, while allowing him to make a defense that the Obama Administration fulfilled its campaign promise of Internet freedom. If they didn’t care about being taken to court over their plans, they would have written something far more air-tight. So instead, they came up with this heavily compromised approach. And Verizon sued them anyway.

Verizon Communications Inc. on Thursday filed a legal challenge to new federal regulations that prohibit broadband providers from interfering with Internet traffic flowing over their networks.

In a filing in federal appeals court in the District of Columbia, Verizon argues that the Federal Communications Commission overstepped its authority in adopting the new “network neutrality” rules last month.

The rules prohibit phone and cable companies from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services — including online calling services such as Skype and Internet video services such as Netflix, which in many cases compete with services sold by companies like Verizon.

That’s not really a good analysis of the proposal. The FCC plan permits discrimination by allowing a “reasonable network management” standard that could easily be used to give preferential treatment to certain content. It makes no explicit rule on “paid prioritization,” a concept which completely undermines net neutrality. And it only mandates “transparency” on wireless services, rather than anti-discrimination.

The lawsuit comes out of the FCC’s reluctance to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. That opened up any rulemaking to legal challenge. These rules were never on solid footing as a result. So with this lawsuit, the FCC is really reaping what they sowed here. Never mind that the Verizon claim that the FCC is violating their Constitutional rights is kind of nutty. The FCC had the opportunity to make their rules legally sound, and they avoided it – ironically, to please the telecoms. And the telecoms rewarded the FCC by suing them. [cont'd.]

Amusingly, Verizon wants the same judges who invalidated a previous FCC ruling to hear this case.

Verizon’s other motion, also filed Thursday, asks the federal appeals court to assign to hear the appeal the same panel of judges who last April ruled that the FCC didn’t have the authority to censure Comcast for interfering with users’ web traffic.

Net neutrality advocates were quick to call out Verizon, accusing them of playing legal games with the issue and the venue. Harold Feld, legal director for Public Knowledge, a DC-based group who has lobbied for stronger rules, explained that by filing the challenge as a license appeal, they were attempting to assure themselves access to judges with an apparent hostility to net neutrality.

“Verizon is trying to be too cute in trying to pick not only the venue for the challenge to the rules, but also to pick the judges to hear it,” said Feld. “The court should see through this ploy and reject Verizon’s attempt to pick the home field for its appeal.”

This is another example of Obama Administration agencies trying to please everyone and instead pleasing no one.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)

Earlier today, the FCC and the Justice Department ruled in favor of the merger between Comcast and NBC Universal, creating one of the largest media conglomerates in the world and setting an unadvisable template for one company to combine the power of media and the Internet.

Sen. Al Franken, who has been a lonely critic of the proposed merger, released a caustic statement on the FCC action today:

“The FCC’s action today is a tremendous disappointment. The Commission is supposed to protect the public interest, not corporate interests. But what we see today is an effort by the FCC to appease the very companies it’s charged with regulating. With approval of this merger, the FCC has given a single media conglomerate unprecedented control over the flow of information in America. This will ultimately mean higher cable and Internet bills, fewer independent voices in the media, and less freedom of choice for all American consumers. And it will leave Minnesotans at the mercy of a shrinking number of very powerful media conglomerates.

We count on competition in this country to keep corporations in check, and we have designed antitrust laws to ensure that companies do not become too big or too powerful. I fear this is only the first domino in a cascade to come. By approving this merger, the FCC may have just given a green light to AT&T and Verizon to pursue similar mergers with ABC/Disney or CBS/Viacom. But, this does not mean the fight is over. A growing number of Americans stand behind me ready to fight any further media consolidation of this kind.”

This is the big point. If Comcast and NBC can combine, Verizon and AT&T have a pathway to merge with a media comglomerate and centralize control of a large sector of the market. The explosion of the Internet seemed to be a way to create diversity in the media, with a proliferation of new voices and perspectives. But a Verizon/CBS/Viacom could use the weak net neutrality proposal to deliver their preferred content and slow down competitors on their networks, shrinking the number of voices that can reach large audiences. Like Comcast and NBC, these companies would control the content, and the means to deliver that content. This is no different than movie studios owning the theaters, something that an antitrust ruling rightly took down in 1948. The deal, says Josh Silver of Free Press, “sets the stage for Comcast to turn the Internet into something that looks like cable TV.”

Silver adds that “Comcast-NBC could soon hike up rates, take away your favorite channels or even stop you from watching your favorite shows online.” There’s evidence that Comcast has done this with respect to Netflix by forcing what amount to bribes in exchange for access. This threatens the principle of a diverse media, one which has faded away in recent years. In addition, Comcast will have a means to jack up the prices cable operators pay for NBC-affiliated product, and those higher fees will be passed on to consumers.

It’s a really bad day for those opposed to media consolidation.

One open source software to rule them all. (source: Wikipedia)

In case there were any remaining doubt that Julius Genachowski is a completely corrupt dishonest bastard, or that the other two Democratic FCC commissioners are spineless jellyfish, check out their laughable explanation for why they gave wireless service providers free rein to block whatever they like:

Further, we recognize that there have been meaningful recent moves toward openness, including the introduction of open operating systems like Android. In addition, we anticipate soon seeing the effects on the market of the openness conditions we imposed on mobile providers that operate on upper 700 MHz C-Block spectrum, which includes Verizon Wireless, one of the largest mobile wireless carriers in the U.S.

In light of these considerations, we conclude it is appropriate to take measured steps at this time to protect the openness of the Internet when accessed through mobile broadband.

You see, it’s okay for the telecoms to block or throttle wireless access, because the openness of the Android operating system will magically cancel out any closedness of the spectrum. Awesome!

I suppose we should be grateful that Genachowski didn’t use the presence of open-source Linux in the wired desktop space to justify a clean sweep.

(Crossposted at Multi Medium)

Slide from keynote by danahboyd (photo: Taramisu via Flickr)

The FCC officially approved rules that reportedly provide net neutrality protections to wireline Internet but not wireless services, and which include a host of loopholes for both types of service.

We don’t actually know the full extent of the rules, as they have not been published (the FCC promises to do so this week). But we know the broad outlines. Wireline providers would not be allowed to block access to sites and applications. But wireless companies would have the ability to limit access to services. Plus, there would be a “reasonable network management” standard that could be used to give preferential treatment to certain content. What’s more, “paid prioritization,” where companies can purchase faster treatment of their content, is not explicitly banned by this rule (Genachowski said the FCC “was not approving” paid prioritization either). And, the rule allows providers to charge for broadband usage, which will lead to the kind of tiered pricing that we see in cable service (many charge that this is reasonable for a utility like the Internet).

Al Franken, who has been the loudest Senator on these issues, offered this reaction to the passage in the FCC. He refers to some “improvements” on Julius Genachowski’s original net neutrality draft, but we don’t really know what they are yet.

“The FCC’s action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet. I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.

“I appreciate the efforts of Commissioners Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn, and of net neutrality advocates nationwide, who have all worked tirelessly to improve this rule. Although it doesn’t go far enough, I commend the Commission for listening to our concerns and making a number of improvements since the draft order was circulated. I’m particularly encouraged by the inclusion of language cautioning that the FCC’s silence on certain kinds of discriminatory behavior by wireless carriers doesn’t tacitly condone it. While this is far from adequate, it stops us from taking a step backward.

“The FCC must now vigorously enforce what is in the new order and keep its promise of addressing the wireless issue in the near future. I will continue to hold the agency’s feet to the fire, ensuring it uses its full authority to keep the Internet free and open. And going forward, I will be looking at all legislative and administrative options to strengthen these protections.”

The most likely next venue for these rules is the courts. The Republicans reject any rulemaking over the Internet whatsoever, basically turning it into a free-fire zone for the telecoms. Mitch McConnell denounced the FCC action today. Crucially, the FCC did not reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, which gives opponents the ability to sue in court over the ability for the FCC to regulate. If the ruling comes down similar to last year’s Comcast ruling, then this whole rule could get thrown out. Without a consensus on the legislative side either, we’re looking at years of wrangling here. In the meantime, many of the loopholes offered by this rule can be blown wide open by the telecom industry. [cont'd.]

More from Wilson Rothman (I don’t fully endorse this, but I found the piece interesting).

UPDATE: The Writers Guild of America, East released this statement:

A compromise means the parties to a dispute reach agreement. Here, no one has agreed to anything. These tepid rules will be challenged in court and in Congress, and they fail in the most fundamental ways – permitting paid prioritization and all manner of discrimination in wireless.

Our members write most of what people watch on television and in the movie theaters and increasingly, online.  Today’s FCC vote will diminish our members’ ability to create and distribute innovative content and audiences’ ability to watch the content of their choice.

And we all know how Enron writing electricity regs turned out. (photo: MyEyeSees via Flickr)

David Dayen’s post this a.m. summarizes concerns about the apparent regulatory capture of the Federal Communications Commission, which is about to issue new rules to undermine internet open access, aka, “net neutrality.” NYT coverage is here.

I’ll leave to Tim Karr and others to describe the technical features and sell outs that have allowed the Western World’s Worst internet/broadband structure to become slower, more expensive and more discriminatory than services in other countries. Senator Al Franken gave an excellent speech, worth watching on the full range of policy issues.

It may help to have an analogous framework on how to think about what corporate capture of the internet and broadband service means, not just in terms of speed and coverage but in terms of content and pricing. It’s not just that our service is slower and we face monopoly pricing, it’s that a tiny handful of corporations are seizing control of what we’ll be allowed to watch and read.

Suppose that President Eisenhower had proposed we build an interstate highway system, but we’d allow only three or four large corporations to carve up and own all the main interconnections, determine the tolls and decide who got to drive on them during which hours. The corporations could also decide where the on/off ramps were, which communities they did or didn’t serve, where the routes went, depending on which provided better tax breaks.

And suppose these same companies owned a couple of auto companies, and they could decide whether cars and trucks made by their affiliate companies got better access, more lanes, higher speeds and lower tolls than cars/trucks sold by competitors.

Then suppose the Justice Department and the FTC did not think it their job to enforce the anti-trust laws of the United States, while the federal highway regulators did not believe they should have rules requiring open access, fair pricing, and non-discrimination.

Welcome to the forthcoming US policy on broadband/internet access.  [cont'd.]

We’re now told that the Democratic appointees on the FCC plan to develop a master plan for how this will all work. But until the Obama Administration and Congress forcefully and clearly direct the FCC to adopt and enforce rules for open, non-discriminatory access to the internet, the FCC has no framework consistent with the public interest for talking about some master plan. I doubt they’re even having a relevant conversation.

We saw an analogous battle over access to another network, the electricity transmission infrastructure. That industry spent over two decades struggling with the concepts of open access, non-discrimination, and efficient pricing. And after some failures and very bad false starts — recall California — we’ve made some progress there.

The electricity transmission system now connects the whole country, but its operation, once wholly balkanized, is now split between two types of system operators.

In over half the country, the transmission system is operated regionally by an independent, non-profit organization overseen by a federal regulator. Each independent system operator (ISO) functions under open access, non-discrimination rules. Every supplier, every generator, regardless of ownership, and every buyer/community/utility gets open access to the entire grid on non-discriminatory terms. Every technology/fuel source — wind, solar, coal, gas, nuclear, etc, can get on the grid just by connecting to the interconnected grid and agreeing to the open access rules. This system keeps the lights on in well over half the country, and the same model functions in about a dozen countries world wide.

However, in the rest of the US — mostly the deep South (think Southern Company) and the West (outside California) — the transmission system is owned and operated in a balkanized fashion by a [usually] private regional utility monopolies that has a vested interest in making sure competitors and/or non-preferred technologies are not given the same access as their own generators. If the owner’s lines are “full” or “congested,” the owners can allow their generators to serve their loads but curtail anyone else. Competitors are not allowed to connect to the grid under the same rules; buyers (e.g., municipal utilities) can’t buy from others and use the owner’s lines without negotiating special access deals and paying fees to the owner. The federal regulators tolerate this discrimination, because they can’t overcome the campaign contributions and political influence the monopolists have in Congress. Sound familiar?

Today’s FCC announcement reminds me of where the California electricity restructuring debate was in 1995, about the time Enron and its trader friends (remember “screw granny”?) were at the height of their influence and they were helping the large utilities write the rules that guaranteed discrimination and included rules that we knew would enable Enron’s gaming the system. Those of us who objected and demanded the system operators function as quasi-public entities and guarantee open access and non-discrimination were accused of being socialists plotting a government takeover, even a Soviet 5-year Plan! We’ve been here before, and what’s coming next will be ugly.

It’s blindingly obvious that folks like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, the nation’s largest cable provider, should never be allowed to write the rules for the internet and broadband access. Nor should their captured regulators ever sanction discrimination and anti-competitive mergers that allow Comcast to gobble up NBC.

John Chandley

photo: DiscourseMarker via Flickr

I mentioned yesterday that the FCC hearing on net neutrality would be streamed live this morning, but the drama was removed from the proceedings last night, when Michael Copps and Mignon Clyburn announced, with some reluctance, that they would support Julius Genachowski’s pretend net neutrality plan. Tim Karr was one of the first out of the gate to blast the decision.

According to all reports, the rule, which will be voted on during tomorrow’s FCC meeting, falls drastically short of earlier pledges by President Obama and the FCC Chairman to protect the free and open Internet.

The rule is so riddled with loopholes that it’s become clear that this FCC chairman crafted it with the sole purpose of winning the endorsement of AT&T and cable lobbyists, and not defending the interests of the tens of millions of Internet users.

We don’t know the full nature of the deal yet; Copps and Clyburn did negotiate with Genachowski and presumably got something for their votes. But their statements did show more regret than eagerness to embrace the rule. And Genachowski’s own statement, where he literally says “I reject both extremes” (as if it’s extreme to want content on the Internet to be treated equally), portends the expected disaster. The list of “supporters” of his rule include front groups being paid by the telecoms, and the Communication Workers of America, which has always lined up behind AT&T on net neutrality.

You just have to read the lead graf of the New York Times’ story today to know the nature of the sellout:

The Federal Communications Commission appears poised to pass a controversial set of rules that broadly create two classes of Internet access, one for fixed-line providers and the other for the wireless Net.

The proposed rules of the online road would prevent fixed-line broadband providers like Comcast and Qwest from blocking access to sites and applications. The rules, however, would allow wireless companies more latitude in putting limits on access to services and applications.

The only difference between “fixed-line” and wireless Internet is that the whole world is moving to wireless, where the rule will basically not apply.

Perhaps the worst thing about this deal is that it’s completely unsecure. Because Genachowski will not reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service, the rule will run into legal resistance of the exact same kind as the Comcast case, which upended different FCC rules. You should not put out net neutrality rules until you are certain they will succeed in court – the resultant uncertainty from a court battle could last for years, where telecoms will just blatantly flaunt convention and gouge consumers.

But it’s not clear these rules themselves, which allow for “reasonable network management” for broadband providers (that means they can basically move content as they see fit), and does not even ban “paid prioritization,” whereby a company could pay a provider for faster service, will stop that in the first place. We have terrible broadband in the US, and by all accounts, we’re now going to pay more for it, with less choice of content. It’s all very sad and I don’t know where the open Internet movement goes from here.

…as Chris Bowers notes, this is truly regulatory capture, as no election would have changed the 3-2 Democratic advantage on the FCC until at least 2012.

Your connected experience. (photo: Keoki Seu via Flickr)

The rise of Internet-enabled mobile devices has had some interesting consequences. On the face of it, smart phones and tablets are a boon. They allow people to access email and web sites anywhere, not just when tethered to a desktop. Laptops, with their greater bulk and relatively short battery life, have traditionally been business devices for those who need to work remotely.

Smaller devices changed that. Now that consumers are used to having the Web in their pockets, or throwing a tablet into a small bag, everyone is trying to deliver a high quality mobile Web experience. Reduced screen sizes make many pages difficult to view, which leads to mobile applications (apps) designed specifically for the new form factor. Which then leads to app stores.

App stores have helped turn devices into unique ecosystems. In the desktop computer world this has not been an issue: most people would choose one operating system and stick with it. But if you own an iPhone, you’ll have apps designed specifically for it. You cannot just pick up a Blackberry and immediately start using it the same way. Sure you can find many of the same apps (and pay for them again), but that is a hassle. Now that carriers are starting to sign exclusive deals for content, it might become less and less an issue of what software runs on it than what agreements have been inked with whom.

All these new services will be introduced on spiffy new next-generation high speed networks. Which, incidentally, are being rolled out with absurdly limited usage caps. Which, incidentally, should not exist at all. Back in the mid-90′s there was lots of freaking out when AOL unveiled an unlimited dial up access plan for $19.95 per month. The conventional wisdom was that the infrastructure would not support the increased demand. Guess what? ISPs built out their networks, capacity rose to meet the new demand, and all was well. The same should happen now. If providers are concerned about where the money will come from, they should start with the $200 billion already lavished upon them by taxpayers for just this purpose.  . . .

Speaking of AOL, here is how the folks on CNET’s Buzz Out Loud talked about these new mobile environments (starts around 15:15):

Natali Morris: What they want you to think is that your computer is the Internet, not that your computer does anything else than what Google permits your computer to do, so not only do they own the Internet, they own your entire computing digital life.

Molly Wood: Well, because everyone is trying to own the connected experience, it is no longer the Web experience, it is the connected experience. And everybody wants to own that, and have your connection happen through their app.

Benito Gonzalez: It’s great – everybody wants to be AOL in the 90′s.

If you were actually on AOL in the 90′s you probably laughed at that last line, because AOL really did bend over backwards to get its customers to never stray from its sites. When you connected with AOL it launched with an AOL browser and showed you the AOL home page, which contained links to sports, entertainment, gossip, etc. – all on AOL. Many people thought AOL was the Internet because they never went anywhere else. That is what is happening again with these increasingly self-contained systems.

Consider this in conjunction with two other items. First, the increasing push for “cloud computing,” which is just a buzz phrase for remote storage. Instead of having a local hard drive, a provider like Google or Amazon makes their space available to you. All your files are on their servers; as long as your mobile device has an app for it, you can get to them. Tablet, netbook, cell phones – multiple devices all able to see the same stuff. Sounds much more convenient than having it all on a PC and copying it everywhere right? And they’ll take care of the backups, upgrades and other administrative chores too. What could be simpler?

Then think about the FCC’s soon-to-be released standards that will largely exempt wireless carriers from net neutrality rules. In practice it will socialize users to expect a more restricted experience with these devices (even more so than the reduced processing power and screen size already do). Companies will be free to throttle or entirely block sites and users accustomed to a more limited Internet will accept it (perhaps without even knowing it is happening).

Now let’s say all your data is on the cloud. It is very versatile and convenient, provided you remain on good terms with your provider. But as time goes on and more data gets on the cloud, you become more dependent on it. You can walk away from a service that has only a handful of files hosted. What if you put all of your data there? All your photos, music and so on? How long would it take to download all that if you had to without much warning? Would doing so bust your usage cap? How about private data like electronic tax returns? Will you keep a smaller, separate local drive for that or trust the provider to safeguard it? Keep them out of the cloud and you have two drives to keep track of. What happens if there is a dispute and the provider decides you have violated its terms of service? Will you be given the chance to retrieve your files? If so where will you put them?

There are worries beyond customer/business ones. What if you become troublesome to the powers that be? We already know the government will lean hard on hosting companies to pull the plug, and companies will comply. What guarantee is there that your files will not start getting mirrored by, say, the NSA? Recent developments notwithstanding, there is no reason to expect it couldn’t happen, and quickly. One of the reasons the FISA Amendments Act was so damaging was because it formalized a procedure by which the Constitution may be completely circumvented. It goes like this:

Government goes to the companies (and you better fucking play ball, mister) and says it wants absolutely everything, no warrants required. The companies hand it over. If it goes to court Congress will pass a law granting retroactive immunity before even discovery can begin. Case closed, problem solved. That is exactly how it played out in 2008. We have seen this play before. We know how it ends.

That is what is beginning now. Companies are offering an attractive, convenient and high speed (albeit capped and throttled) experience. Government sets rules privileging the handful of big providers, and an increasingly docile user base slowly funnels into one of those silos. Federal officials can then, if need be, work with these partners (Orwellian language intended) to get whatever it thinks it has to have – no legal hassles required. It is a very efficient way to manage an otherwise unwieldy population.

Many people are already thinking through the implications of all this. In an email exchange a couple weeks ago with CA Berkeley WV from wvablue.com and CPCEconomy, she wrote from her smart phone (republished with her permission):

I have this gadget here, but we still have copper wires to a rotary dial in the kitchen and the intertoobs in the front room comes from that same copper wire. Not ready to lay it all on the wireless altar.

Similarly, in the wake of the government seizure of dozens of domain names a couple weeks ago, a movement has started for a peer-to-peer Domain Name Service (P2P DNS) system. Instead of relying on domain services that bow to official pressure, activists are working on distributing their own list of names and addresses so that, for instance, WikiLeaks will resolve to 213.251.145.96 on your computer irrespective of what the US (or by proxy your ISP) might want. This of course would be vulnerable to sabotage as well as splintering of the “Judean People’s Front/People’s Front of Judea” variety, but it offers a way to be independent of the plutonomy.

We are seeing the development of an increasingly bright line in how users access the Internet. For most people, who don’t know or can’t be bothered, there will be an array of relatively cheap and fast wireless options that will allow them to stream media, store favorite music or picture files on remote drives, and generally live their digital lives happily in a gilded cage. (This all assumes no one takes an interest in the DRM status of their MP3 files or becomes concerned that their pictures might show things that touch on national security.) For those who do not want to live there – permanently, anyway – there will be another one: Wired, slower, locally stored and self-administered – that will provide access to that portion of the network that has not yet been smothered out of existence.

No Associated Press content was harmed in the writing of this post.

Cross posted from Pruning Shears.