Here’s Why Republicans Will Shut Down The Government

By Randell A. Monaco
February 23, 2011


In need of a strategy to rehabilitate their party from the economic disaster that has allowed Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, their associates in the Bush Administration government such as the Federal Reserve and others who let all this go on and enabled the disaster, Republicans needed to re-craft their image.

A purification strategy was needed to create the appearance of veering from the responsibility of Bush legacy which made that all possible. Conservatives also needed to reenergize their base and switch the public attention away from the real cause and people who are actually responsible. So, now it is teachers, police, firefighters, sanitation workers and their unions who have become the villains with their Rolls Royce healthcare benefits and pensions. The Big Government – Small Government debate continues with the assistance of a new diversionary tactic.

To overcome any suspicion that party leadership was not going to deliver on their promise to deliver major spending cuts to the public who supported them Republicans must now deal with the reality that they can’t enact their agenda because Democrats control the Senate and the White House. To save face, Republican leaders must dramatize their fight to carry out the promised agenda which leaves them no room to come out with a compromise.

Republican leaders have openly declared their hostility to compromise because they know that their support base, unlike moderates or even liberal Democrats, oppose compromise and as a matter of self interest and preservation the writing is on the wall, Republican’s will shut down the Government. Keep your eye on the political ball, here comes the shutdown; Tea anyone?

Glenn Greenwald debates WikiLeaks with Frances Townsend on CNN

Glenn Greenwald objected to this premise:

"No, you're absolutely wrong because the New York Times used its sources all the time and take classified information that they are not authorized to disseminate...good investigative journalists, maybe CNN doesn't do this, but good investigative journalists work their sources all the time to convince them to give them classified information to inform the citizens of the United States about what the government is doing."

In a free country, the government cannot, should not and does not have unlimited power to determine what publishers can publish and what the public can read.

Tell us America, is there a First Amendment in our Nation? If the answer is yes then why hasn't our elected government heard about it? Our guess is self interest not public interest which is the American Dilemma. Too much secrecy does not serve the interests of the people of our Nation and is the cancer of democracy.

Journalistic Transparency, a Mandate for Hope of Global Democracy

By RANDELL A. MONACO, Esq.
December 4, 2010

How much influence has Corporate America had on the recent efforts and mobilization of the international community and the U.S. Justice Department to censor WikiLeaks who has become an important international transparency organization?

Media freedom watchdog Reporters Without Borders on Saturday condemned the personal attacks on Assange and "the blocking, cyber-attacks and political pressure" in what it called the first "attempt at the international community level to censor a website dedicated to the principle of transparency."

The question being begged is to what extent have the recent intervention efforts been stepped up out of concern of exposed wrong doing and the promised WikiLeaks release of information come Monday about conduct on Wall Street and in the U.S. Banks? It seems more than coincidence that the intervention of US Senator Joseph Lieberman resulted in the decisions of Dynamic Network Services Inc., PayPal and Amazon Inc..

On December 2, 2010 American owned EveryDNS dropped WikiLeaks from its entries, citing DDoS attacks that "threatened the stability of its infrastructure". The validity of that concern should be questioned. The site's 'info' DNS lookup remained operational at alternative addresses for direct access respectively to the Wikileaks and Cablegate websites.

In step with Dynamic Network Services Inc., Amazon Inc. severed its ties with WikiLeaks, to which it was providing infrastructure services. As reported by Dylan Welch of theAge.com.au this followed the intervention of an aide on behalf of US Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Then, on December 4, 2010 PayPal, the payment processor owned by eBay, permanently cut access to WikiLeaks.org. In a blog posting PayPal claimed that WikiLeaks violated its "Acceptable Use Policy".

There seem plenty of reasons to question PayPal’s claims and Amazon’s denial of acting under political pressure following the intervention of Senator Lieberman’s aide. Senator Lieberman, who later praised Amazon's decision and called for other companies to follow suit, has also proposed new legislation to amend the Espionage Act to include the “publication” of “human intelligence” targeting similar cases — Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination Act, also known as the SHIELD Act .

Without discussion or public statement of review of obvious constitutional concerns related to the freedoms of speech and press, corporate America and the international community have acted to censor what should have been recognized as a public service to our Nation. The vulnerability and release of this information has exposed the real concern, NOT the publication which was after the fact.

Also, access to WikiLeaks has been blocked in the United States Library of Congress. Importantly, on December 3, 2010, the White House Office of Management and Budget dispatched a memo forbidding all unauthorized federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites. Presumably this would include off hours access from personal non-public computers.

Is seems that what is being focused on is the embarrassing wrong doing possibly by, and between, both Wall Street and government officials. This is speculation but this sequence of events is beginning to look and walk like a duck!
The temporary shutdown of WikiLeaks seems an end to an extraordinary week for Mr. Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, and possibly a warm up of things to come in the week ahead for Wall Street and others yet to be named.

A call to action for the boycott of Amazon, PayPal and eBay this Christmas Season would be a worthy stand for Global Democracy.

Sen Bernie Sanders Amazing Speech!

America needs and deserves a government that functions outside the conflicting interests that has destoyed our collective trust. A government that functions 100% of the time in their constitutionally mandated service, underline service of "people" they are elected to govern.

America Needs a Shared Vision First

By RANDELL A. MONACO, Esq.
November 27, 2010

In a recently published Rasmussen Report it was noted that 47 percent of American’s polled by telephone said our Nation’s “best days are in the past.” Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times Op-Ed Columnist and economist, in response authored Got to Get This Right which outlined his concerns to America. I first became aware of his article after noticing the length of a comment thread to his article on my Facebook. After reading the article, I returned to my Facebook page to give more than a glancing observation to the investment of this collective intelligence.

Let me say first, that I am fond of the intelligence of my particular group of friends on Facebook. As a group, I believe that America could again be a great nation if everyone’s friend-list shared a comparable collective intellect and engagement. Now with that said, what really jumped out at me next was that virtually everyone, including Thomas Friedman himself, failed to see, mention or discuss the single most important element required to change the course of what I agree is a disturbing trend.

To “get this moment right” we will need more than stimulus, hybrid politics, hard choices and a workable plan. We will need more than Medicare and Social Security entitlement cuts, investments in infrastructure, schools and government-financed research programs.
What America needs to get right now is a shared vision, a dream if you will, not a mere plan. The best possible plan, and I don’t think there is just one but potentially many, will be doomed to fail even before its inception without restoring the nation’s collective vision of who and what America is as a nation. In my opinion, a shared vision is the essential element to what becomes of our nation. The entire world depends upon America’s vision of itself as a nation.
I feel that Friedman’s assessment, that American’s want a plan to make America great again states the obvious. Our long-term concerns and intuitive awakening is an important step to a beginning for our nation, but sadly the idea of Hybrid politics to make these hard choices will never find the support needed because our collective trust in America’s elected government is gone, absent and non-existent.

The continued partisan politics, blame and increasing citizen engagement has become little more than a dog chasing it own tail. Without a shared vision, we are each guaranteed one thing in this moment we’ve “Got to Get This Right” which is, more of the same! We are each to blame on some level for how we got to this historical place whether it be, apathy, ignoring self dealing or failing to demand political accountability, take your pick. I don’t believe that all politicians are corrupt but the fact is that the system is broken and we are all in this boat together.
With that said, I commend President Obama for his efforts to steer America toward the future and away from public calls for accountability in Washington and on Wall Street when first elected. Then as now, America needs leadership and engaging in the blame game won’t deliver or contribute much if anything at all. The best thing the president could do right now is declare his support for election reform that has as a component publically funded campaign finance, transparency and accountability.

America needs and deserves a government that functions outside the conflicting interests that has destroyed our collective trust. A government that functions 100% of the time in their constitutionally mandated service, underline service of the “people” they are elected to govern.

We have recently seen congressional hearings at public expense giving audience to comedians like Stephan Colbert, Justice Department prosecution of Roger Clemens stemming from Senate hearings on inquiries about steroid use in Major League Baseball all the while ignoring the conduct of corporate America on Wall Street and their influence in Washington. Is that how we really expect our elected government to spend their day and our money? Do they really expect to find credible solutions entertaining comedians on issues like immigration on C-SPAN? Are we really that stupid or is it that our elected government believes that we are?

Shouldn’t our expectations be that the compensation received by our elected and appointed officials be earned in the “service” of America’s people? When did it become acceptable to campaign on our dime? Who spends $140 million dollars trying to get a job that pays $212,179.00 annually for four years? Why? Why are these want-to-be politicians like Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman who for 28 years didn’t even vote, suddenly deciding on a career in public service? Shouldn’t we be offended by what we’ve seen?

Once Americans begin to understand that their collective engagement in partisan debate at this point is little more than civic masturbation, we can begin to examine how to change our government and restore the ideals of our nation which is the work of public service not self service.

Our long term concerns, if we “Got to Get This Right”, should be mindful of an important economical reality which is that 78 million baby boomers have begun to retire. The economics of this fact cannot be overstated from a health care, tax revenue and political support perspectives. And as a long term concern our educational investment in human capital, America’s greatest resource must ensure our competitiveness fifteen years into the future without the disruption of the four to eight year cycle that insures an unrealized benefit.

America does not need another plan – we as a nation need a shared “Vision” of what America stands for, is, should have been and should always be. Our shared vision needs to be seen in a vivid, detailed and credible image. Not as another partisan idea or promise. Partisanship at this juncture is the enemy insuring only our failure at the starting gate.

As a workable course for the country right now — one that needs to take place before any meaningful planned nation-building can take place, America needs election reform and a thorough house cleaning that restores our collective trust in elected government.

The best thing our president can do right now is declare his support for the draft recommendations of the Fair Elections Now Act developed through the efforts of Harvard University Professor Lawrence Lessig and the Fix Congress First organization. (www.fixcongressfirst.org ) My recommendation should not be considered a wholesale endorsement. It is genuinely my belief that congressional reform is the “Vision” America’s democracy needs to share at this threshold of any new plan for our nation.

Finally, I too believe that we would follow the president and our elected government - pay more taxes and give up more services – if, and only if, we believe that the plan is one that will truly make America great again.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/28/opinion/28friedman.html]

Notebook: Wikileaks

Crime or intimidation and harassment?
Katie Couric discusses the website WikiLeaks that just released 250,000 State Dept. documents. What issues or problems would by the prosecution of Julian Assange for media. What lessons in history speak to the Justice Departments warrant for Julian Assange's arrest? These are issues that are far more important to the American public than diplomatic embarassment.

Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7100527n&tag=mncol;lst;1#ixzz16qjC0Lqg

Wealth and Internet Usage What Pew Can Tell Us

Internet connections have become increasingly mobile. Broadband Internet in the home is no longer an accurate demographic measure for access. Here is what the most recent Pew study can tell us about our internet use.

A study measurement called “intensity of use” points to some disparities at differing income levels. For instance, higher income levels are checking email (93% of them do so), accessing news online (80%), paying bills (71%), and research products (88%). On the other hand, only 34% of those at the lowest income brackets get their news online.

Ninety five percent of households earning over $75,000 a year use the Internet at least occasionally, compared with 70% of those living in households below that income level.

Why do we want to know these things? Mostly because our daily lives are being herded into and through the virtual world. These findings seem to indicate more than anything that society needs to take initiative to shape our methods, practices and lives and not sit back to have the corporate culture with the help of elected government hand us the future.

http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Better-off-households.aspx

'Should Corporations Decide Our Elections'-Part 4-Lawrence Lessig-- 10/15/10--NYC

'Should Corporations Decide Our Elections'-Part 4-Lawrence Lessig-- 10/15/10--NYC from Big Apple Coffee Party on Vimeo.

The information contained in this video is vital for everyone to who cares about our democracy.

Lawrence Lessig, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, discusses 'Should Corporations Decide Our Elections' and how the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court decision affects elections, lobbying, and the mixture of money and politics.

The event was sponsored by the Big Apple Coffee Party and their co-sponsors.

Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks

Impeachment Investigation of Chief Justice John Roberts

Justice John Paul Steven's dissent in the Citizen's United case comments on the extraordinary way that the cases were brought before the Supreme Court and decided by Chief Justice Roberts when not properly before the court.

Justice Stevens said of the process, that it would be more accurate to state that, "we have asked ourselves to reconsider those cases." Democratic Congressman, Rep. Peter DeFazio is raising the prospect of impeaching the Supreme Court's chief justice over the issue on the basis that in the 2005 confirmation hearings, Roberts famously said, "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules, they apply them."

According to DeFazion, Roberts hasn't stood by his own doctrine. While nothing in Roberts' testimony is likely to be fairly characterized as perjury the reality is that the check and balance design of our constitution has been compromised by the political process highlighting the need for election reform, transparency and government accountability.

Amanda Terkel reporting for the Huffington Post article can be located:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/peter-defazio-impeachment-chief-justice-john-roberts_n_771431.html

Fix Congress First: Lessig on Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision: Change Congress Video

NEED TO KNOW | Peter Stone on the influence of money in this year's campaign | PBS

The influence of money in this year's campaign continues to show the buying of our legislators and politicos.

Stephen Colbert Hearing "Protect America's Harvest"

In August, the comedian spent a day working at a corn and vegetable farm in New York state after Rodriguez appeared on his show to discuss UFW's "Take Our Jobs" campaign.
The effort is intended to debunk the theory that undocumented immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens and highlight the fact the nation's food supply is dependent on these farm workers.

"Protecting America's Harvest" Stephen Colbert Congressional Hearing

Colbert says he is happy and honored to be there, to share his "vast experience" of working on a farm for one day, and hopes his fame will get this show bumped up to "C-SPAN ONE."
He offers to prove the value of vegetables by entering his colonoscopy into the Congressional record.
By the way, the comedy is way too fast for this liveblogger!
Colbert says he "rejects the idea" that Americans won't do farmwork because he is an American and he did it, in an effort to prove that he already had a way better job. He jokes that in November, a lot of Democrats are going to know what it's like to lose a good job. "I do mean this sincerely...please don't make me do this again."
"Apparently, the invisible hand doesn't pick beans." Adam Smith comedy.
"I'm not a fan of the government doing anything, but I have to wonder, why isn't the government doing anything? Like me, it's possible that they haven't read the bill." He then does the inversion thing, where he comes out in favor of the bill, along with a rather cutting, subtle admonishment that Congress doesn't always seem to act with much urgency.

Mark Zuckerberg Talks Philanthropy and More on “Oprah”

Mark Zuckerberg on Oprah from Cindy W on Vimeo.

Nothing to be proud of!

Suing music fans a strategy that the RIAA began in 2003 has proven to be an ineffective response to unauthorized P2P file-sharing. Downloading from P2P networks is more popular than ever, despite the widespread public awareness of lawsuits. The RIAA lawsuit campaign has not resulted in any royalties to artists. One thing has become clear: suing music fans is no answer to the P2P dilemma.
Five years into the RIAA’s campaign, it has become all too clear (if there were ever any doubt) that suing music fans is not a viable business model for the recording industry. With courts, state watchdogs and the RIAA’s own members questioning the tactics of the campaign, it is time for the industry to embrace a new model that can help artists get paid and help fans access and share the music they love.

Education by Lawsuit: Lesson Learned and Ignored
The RIAA has frequently justified the lawsuit campaign as the most effective way to get music fans to understand that downloading is illegal and can have serious consequences. In the words of top RIAA lawyer, Cary Sherman, "Enforcement is a tough love form of education." There is some evidence to support this view. After all, in light of the early headlines in most major media outlets, it would be remarkable if the lawsuits had failed to increase awareness of the record industry’s view that file sharing constitutes copyright infringement. An April 2004 survey revealed that 88% of children between 8 and 18 years of age believed that P2P downloading was illegal. At the same time, the survey also discovered that 56% of the children polled continue to download music. In fact, the children surveyed were more concerned about computer viruses than about being sued by the record industry. Another April 2004 survey, this one focusing on college-bound high school students, found that 89% of high school students continued to download music despite believing that it was against the law. This number decreased slightly in a 2006 survey by Piper Jaffrey that found that of 79% of high school students who obtain their music online, 72% use P2P networks to do so. In short, the RIAA’s "tough love" message has been delivered, and largely ignored.
The "educational" value of the litigation campaign is also diminishing because it has become "business as usual." Media coverage of the continuing lawsuit campaign has largely dissipated, with stories about the lawsuits migrating from the front to the back pages to not being covered at all. Indeed, in early 2006 the RIAA gave up its monthly press releases announcing how many individuals were being sued.
If the goal of the RIAA was to increase awareness of the copyright laws, that mission has been accomplished, albeit at the expense of financial hardship to nearly 30,000 arbitrarily chosen individuals. But as press attention fades, the "bang for the buck" provided by suing randomly-chosen filesharers has diminished as well. In other words, if the lawsuits are to continue indefinitely, they cannot be justified as an "educational" measure.

Does it Work?
Has the arbitrary singling out of nearly 30,000 random American families helped promote public respect for copyright law? Have the lawsuits put the P2P genie back in the bottle or restored the record industry to its 1997 revenues?
While it is hard to precisely measure the use of P2P and the amount of illegal file sharing in the U.S., one thing is clear: after more than 30,000 RIAA lawsuits, tens of millions of U.S. music fans continue to use P2P networks and other new technologies to share music. The lawsuit campaign has not succeeded in driving P2P out of the mainstream, much less to the fringes, of the digital music marketplace. Moreover, by most accounts P2P usage is growing rapidly in the rest of the world, where the RIAA has not been able to replicate the scale of its lawsuits against Americans of all ages and backgrounds.
Over this time, P2P technology sites have made themselves less vulnerable to legal assault by expanding and drawing attention to legitimate uses of P2P technology. BitTorrent indexing site Isohunt.com, for example, has promoted public domain material, and has formed an alliance with Jamendo, an archive of Creative Commons-licensed music from a variety of independent musicians.
The RIAA’s lawsuit campaign against individual American music fans has failed. It has failed to curtail P2P downloading. It has not persuaded music fans that sharing is equivalent to shoplifting. It has not put a penny into the pockets of artists. It has done little to drive most filesharers into the arms of authorized music services. In fact, the RIAA lawsuits may well be driving filesharers to new technologies that will be much harder for the RIAA’s investigators to infiltrate and monitor.

What to do?
At this point, courts, state watchdogs and finally with the foresight of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (http://www.eff.org/wp/riaa-v-people-years-later#3) the RIAA’s own members can now understand the need to question the tactics of that campaign and as an industry look to embrace a new model that can help artists get paid and help fans access and share the music they love.
Given the lessons presumed to have been learned and now understood, how then can a revamped replay of this type of copyright litigation business model be considered an acceptable good faith use of our judicial systems? What RIAA’s campaign and this next round of copyright trolling lawyers like Righthaven who are going after bloggers have in common is that they seek to take advantage of copyright’s draconian damages in order to bully internet users into forking over money.
Maybe latency newspapers and the music industry will step up on behalf of the bloggers and the future of journalism to shut down this next round in overreaching “sue the audience” business model tactics which will surely burden our judicial system, destroy meaningful exploration and innovation of new business models that foster journalism and serve only the financial goals of the lawyers who will surely hide behind the transparent arguments of protecting the interests of clients they are soliciting and lobbing a practice long frowned upon in the legal profession.

Net Neutrality

The F.C.C. under the Obama administration is moving to add a principle that will prevent Internet providers from discriminating against certain services or applications. Consumer advocates are concerned that Internet providers might ban or degrade services that compete with their own offerings, like television shows delivered over the Web.
Some large Internet and telecommunications companies are talking, however, about creating a two-tiered Internet with a fast lane and a slow lane. Google and Verizon, two leading players in Internet service and content, came out with a joint proposal that took a different approach. In a joint policy statement they issued in August 2010 they proposed that regulators enforce those principles on wired connections but not on the wireless Internet. They also excluded something they called "additional, differentiated online services."
In other words, on mobile phones or on special access lanes, carriers like Verizon and AT&T could charge content companies a toll for faster access to customers or, some analysts worry, block certain services from reaching customers altogether.
The proposal set off a flood of reaction, much of it negative, from Web companies and consumer advocacy groups. In the most extreme situation that opponents envision, two Internets could emerge — the public one known today, and a private one with faster lanes and expensive tolls. Google and Verizon defended the exemptions by saying that they were giving carriers the flexibility they need to ensure that the Internet's infrastructure remains "a platform for innovation." Carriers say they need to be able to manage their networks as they see fit and generate revenue to expand them.
Currently, Internet users get access to any Web site on an equal basis. Foreign and domestic sites, big corporate home pages and low-traffic blogs all show up on a user’s screen in the same way when their addresses are typed into a browser. The Federal Communications Commission has come out in favor of keeping things that way, but its ability to do so has been in doubt since a federal appeals decision in April 2010 restricted its authority over broadband service.

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/net_neutrality/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

Steve Jobs is Watching You: Apple Seeking to Patent Spyware

Deeplink by Julie Samuels

It looks like Apple, Inc., is exploring a new business opportunity: spyware and what we're calling "traitorware." While users were celebrating the new jailbreaking and unlocking exemptions, Apple was quietly preparing to apply for a patent on technology that, among other things, would allow Apple to identify and punish users who take advantage of those exemptions or otherwise tinker with their devices. This patent application does nothing short of providing a roadmap for how Apple can — and presumably will — spy on its customers and control the way its customers use Apple products. As Sony-BMG learned, spying on your customers is bad for business. And the kind of spying enabled here is especially creepy — it's not just spyware, it's "traitorware," since it is designed to allow Apple to retaliate against you if you do something Apple doesn't like.
Essentially, Apple's patent provides for a device to investigate a user's identity, ostensibly to determine if and when that user is "unauthorized," or, in other words, stolen. More specifically, the technology would allow Apple to record the voice of the device's user, take a photo of the device's user's current location or even detect and record the heartbeat of the device's user. Once an unauthorized user is identified, Apple could wipe the device and remotely store the user's "sensitive data." Apple's patent application suggests it may use the technology not just to limit "unauthorized" uses of its phones but also shut down the phone if and when it has been stolen.
However, Apple's new technology would do much more. This patented device enables Apple to secretly collect, store and potentially use sensitive biometric information about you. This is dangerous in two ways: First, it is far more than what is needed just to protect you against a lost or stolen phone. It's extremely privacy-invasive and it puts you at great risk if Apple's data on you are compromised. But it's not only the biometric data that are a concern. Second, Apple's technology includes various types of usage monitoring — also very privacy-invasive. This patented process could be used to retaliate against you if you jailbreak or tinker with your device in ways that Apple views as "unauthorized" even if it is perfectly legal under copyright law.
Here's a sample of the kinds of information Apple plans to collect:
The system can take a picture of the user's face, "without a flash, any noise, or any indication that a picture is being taken to prevent the current user from knowing he is being photographed";
The system can record the user's voice, whether or not a phone call is even being made;
The system can determine the user's unique individual heartbeat "signature";
To determine if the device has been hacked, the device can watch for "a sudden increase in memory usage of the electronic device";
The user's "Internet activity can be monitored or any communication packets that are served to the electronic device can be recorded"; and
The device can take a photograph of the surrounding location to determine where it is being used.
In other words, Apple will know who you are, where you are, and what you are doing and saying and even how fast your heart is beating. In some embodiments of Apple's "invention," this information "can be gathered every time the electronic device is turned on, unlocked, or used." When an "unauthorized use" is detected, Apple can contact a "responsible party." A "responsible party" may be the device's owner, it may also be "proper authorities or the police."
Apple does not explain what it will do with all of this collected information on its users, how long it will maintain this information, how it will use this information, or if it will share this information with other third parties. We know based on long experience that if Apple collects this information, law enforcement will come for it, and may even order Apple to turn it on for reasons other than simply returning a lost phone to its owner.
This patent is downright creepy and invasive — certainly far more than would be needed to respond to the possible loss of a phone. Spyware, and its new cousin traitorware, will hurt customers and companies alike — Apple should shelve this idea before it backfires on both it and its customers.

Net Neutrality: Not Just a Nerd Issue

The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FCC overstepped its bounds in telling Comcast it could not regulate bandwidth use. So what if your Internet provider could charge you for what you use?

FURTHER INQUIRY INTO TWO UNDER-DEVELOPED ISSUES IN THE OPEN INTERNET PROCEEDING

In order to promote innovation, investment, competition, and free expression, and to protect and
empower consumers, in late 2009 the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Matter
of Preserving the Open Internet (NPRM). The NPRM seeks public comment on rules that would codify
the Internet Policy Statement’s four principles and strengthen them by prohibiting broadband Internet
access providers from treating lawful traffic in a discriminatory manner, and by requiring providers to be
transparent regarding their network management practices.1 The discussion generated by the
Commission’s Open Internet proceeding appears to have narrowed disagreement on many of the key
elements of the framework proposed in the NPRM: First, that broadband providers should not prevent
users from sending and receiving the lawful content of their choice, using the lawful applications and
services of their choice, and connecting the nonharmful devices of their choice to the network, at least on
fixed or wireline broadband platforms.2 Second, that broadband providers should be transparent
regarding their network management practices.3 Third, that with respect to the handling of lawful traffic,
some form of anti-discrimination protection is appropriate, at least on fixed or wireline broadband
platforms.4 Fourth, that broadband providers must be able to reasonably manage their networks,
including through appropriate and tailored mechanisms that reduce the effects of congestion or address
traffic that is unwanted by users or harmful to the network.5 Fifth, that in light of rapid technological and
market change, enforcing high-level rules of the road through case-by-case adjudication, informed by
1 Preserving the Open Internet; Broadband Industry Practices, GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket No. 07-52,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 13064 (2009) (Open Internet NPRM); see also Appropriate
Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet Over Wireline Facilities et al., CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-
20, 98-10, GN Docket No. 00-185, CS Docket No. 02-52, Policy Statement, 20 FCC Rcd 14986 (2005) (Internet
Policy Statement).
2 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 1-2; Comcast Comments at ii; Qwest Reply Comments at 5; Communications
Workers of America Comments at 12.
3 See, e.g., Cablevision Reply Comments at 15; Comcast Reply Comments at ii; Verizon Reply Comments at 18.
4 See, e.g., Verizon & Google, Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal, at 1, available at
http://www.google.com/googleblogs/pdfs/verizon_google_legislative_framework_proposal_081010.pdf;
Communications Workers of America Comments at 14-21.
5 See, e.g., Free Press Reply Comments at 10.
2
engineering expertise, is a better policy approach than promulgating detailed, prescriptive rules that may
have consequences that are difficult to foresee.6
There are two complex issues, however, that merit further inquiry. The first is the relationship
between open Internet protections and services that are provided over the same last-mile facilities as
broadband Internet access service (commonly called “managed” or “specialized” services). The second is
the application of open Internet rules to mobile wireless Internet access services, which have unique
characteristics related to technology, associated application and device markets, and consumer usage.
The NPRM raised both of these issues but addressed them in less detail than many other issues, and the
Commission’s analysis would benefit from further development of these issues in the record. We
therefore find it appropriate to further inquire into these areas.
I. SPECIALIZED SERVICES7
In the NPRM, the Commission recognized that broadband providers may provide other services
over the same last-mile facilities used to provide broadband Internet access service.8 These services may
drive additional private investment in networks and provide consumers new and valued services.9
However, there appear to be three general areas of concern about how to maintain the investmentpromoting
benefits of specialized services while protecting the Internet’s openness:
(1) Bypassing Open Internet Protections: Open Internet protections may be weakened if
broadband providers offer specialized services that are substantially similar to, but do not
technically meet the definition of, broadband Internet access service, and if consumer
protections do not apply to such services. A similar concern may arise if specialized services
are integrated into broadband Internet access service; for example, if a broadband provider
offers broadband Internet access service bundled with a “specialized service” that provides
prioritized access to a particular website.10
(2) Supplanting the Open Internet: Broadband providers may constrict or fail to continue
expanding the network capacity allocated to broadband Internet access service in order to
provide more capacity for specialized services. If this occurs, and particularly if one or more
specialized services serve as substitutes for the delivery of content, applications, and services
over broadband Internet access service, the open Internet may wither as an open platform for
competition, innovation, and free expression.11
6 See, e.g., Public Interest Commenters (PIC) Comments at Appendix B; Center for Democracy and Technology
(CDT) Comments at 38.
7 The NPRM used the term “managed or specialized services” to describe the services that we here call “specialized
services.” We avoid the term “managed services” to prevent confusion with services that have long been provided
by communications service providers to enterprise customers, which may include managing computing and
communications facilities on behalf of such customers. See, e.g., CDT Comments at 47; Akamai Reply Comments
at 11; Wikipedia, Managed services, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Managed_services.
8 Open Internet NPRM, 24 FCC Rcd at 13116-17, paras. 148-53.
9 See, e.g., Verizon Comments at 8; Comcast Comments at 60-61, 64-66; American Cable Ass’n Comments at 17-
18; Clearwire Comments at 13-14; OPASTCO Comments at 11, 13; PAETEC Comments at 31; Bright House
Comments at 13-14; Covad Comments at 9-10; Motorola Comments at 14-16; Sprint Nextel Reply Comments at 2.
10 See, e.g., Netflix Comments at 9-10; CDT Comments at 46-48; Vonage Comments at 27; Google Comments at
75; Free Press Comments at 111; Dish Network Reply Comments at 12; XO Communications Reply Comments at
20-21.
11 See, e.g., CDT Comments at 46-49; Independent Film & Television Alliance (IFTA) Comments at 18-19; Google
Comments at 76; Sony Electronics Reply Comments at 6-7.
3
(3) Anti-competitive Conduct: Broadband providers may have the ability and incentive to engage
in anti-competitive conduct with respect to specialized services, particularly if they are
vertically integrated providers of content, applications, or services; or if they enter into
business arrangements with third-party content, application, or service providers concerning
specialized service offerings. Such discriminatory conduct could harm competition among,
and private investment in, content, application, and service providers.12
These concerns, particularly the second and third, may be exacerbated by worries that due to limited
choice among broadband Internet access service providers, consumers may not be able to effectively
exercise their preferences for broadband Internet access service (or content, applications, or services
available through broadband Internet access service) over specialized services.13
There appear to be at least six general policy approaches to addressing these concerns while
promoting private investment and encouraging the development and deployment of new services that
benefit consumers. These approaches could be employed alone or in combination:
(A) Definitional Clarity: Define broadband Internet access service clearly and perhaps broadly,
and apply open Internet rules to all forms of broadband Internet access service.14 Specialized
services would be those services with a different scope or purpose than broadband Internet
access service (i.e., which do not meet the definition of broadband Internet access service),
and would not be subject to the rules applicable to broadband Internet access service. But
such services could be addressed through one or more of the below policy approaches, or,
alternatively, the Commission could address the policy implications of such services if and
when such services are further developed in the market.15
(B) Truth in Advertising: Prohibit broadband providers from marketing specialized services as
broadband Internet access service or as a substitute for such service, and require providers to
offer broadband Internet access service as a stand-alone service, separate from specialized
services, in addition to any bundled offerings.16
(C) Disclosure: Require providers to disclose information sufficient to enable consumers, third
parties, and the Commission to evaluate and report on specialized services, including their
effects on the capacity of and the markets for broadband Internet access service and Internetbased
content, applications, and services.17 The Commission or Congress could then take
action if necessary.

http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0901/DA-10-1667A1.pdf