The FCC allowing AT&T and friends to write the new rules for Internet access recalls what happened when California handed the pen to Enron and friends in writing rules for electricity markets. Deja vu all over again

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. 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.

The WGAE represents content creators – people who write programs for the internet and other digital distribution systems (e.g., to mobile devices). We have argued in favor of Net Neutrality because our members want the opportunity to reach audiences directly, without major studios and other large corporations deciding what to distribute. But what about the audience? The public? Why should they care about Net Neutrality? Because there is an important aspect to the Net Neutrality debate that people should keep in mind: “paid prioritization”.

Last Friday, deep in the middle of a long holiday weekend, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seized dozens of web sites. The full list is here, and a common reaction might be “well obviously they were engaged in illegal activity, so they had it coming.” This is an example of what Glenn Greenwald mocked as trial by Wikipedia: the idea that if you bring up a topic which everyone can agree is self-evident, action may be taken without jumping through a whole bunch of tedious legal hoops.

Not only is this proposal horrible because it allows telecoms to ration traffic and basically destroys the principle of net neutrality, but as Copps says, it’s not clear that it’s going to stick. Because of the court rulings, a failure to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service will always run into legal problems. FCC officials claim they have sufficient authority, but it’s very questionable.

As if there weren’t enough things going to pot today, the FCC has decided to come out with a proposal to pretend to institute net neutrality regulations.

The news that Level 3, which has just partnered with Netflix on online video delivery, thinks Comcast is charging them for fast service, brings the debate on net neutrality to a whole new level.

As a resident of the ridiculously gerrymandered Sixth Congressional District of Florida, I am subjected to being represented in Congress by wingnut Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns even though the Gainesville area is heavily Democratic. I spent some time during the 2008 campaign cycle writing posts for the blog The Case Against Cliff, and two major themes developed from the research for my writing. First, Stearns appears to be a fan of torture, as seen in the photo on the left of this composite, which was taken from his website in May of 2008, when he visited Guantanamo. He clearly was excited by the visit, even dressing up for it and posing in an Abu Ghraib pose. Second, it was clear from my research that Stearns’ primary source of funding is the telecommunications industry. That was true of the 2008 cycle and is also true of the 2010 cycle. It is little wonder then, that this morning NPR went to Cliff Stearns for quotes about killing net neutrality, as he is the ranking member of the House Telecommunications Subcommittee.

This is my response to the question of what Obama could do now to address the country’s current problems, without the need to pass a bill through Congress.

Henry Waxman, the chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, just released a statement announcing that he would drop controversial net neutrality legislation, and call on the FCC to use their authority to reclassify broadband as a telecommunications service. This is a major victory for net neutrality advocates and a loss for the telecoms.