Just this month, the United States signed on to a Human Rights Council statement praising freedom of expression on the Internet, along with forty other countries across the world. The purpose of the statement is to emphasize how integral modern-day communications technologies are for the promotion of basic human rights. You would naturally expect the United States, leader of the free world, to be a signatory -- but can the recent slew of restrictive legislation being pushed through Congress allow the U.S. to support a globally open Internet in good faith?? Let’s take a look at the inconsistencies:
The HRC statement says: “We consider Government-initiated closing down of the Internet, or major parts thereof, for purposes of suppressing free speech, to be in violation of freedom of expression. In addition, Governments should not mandate a more restrictive standard for intermediaries than is the case with traditional media regarding freedom of expression or hold intermediaries liable for content that they transmit or disseminate.”
Yet, Senate Bill 978 -- the "Ten Strikes Bill" -- would make unlicensed online streaming (by corporations or individual Internet users) a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.
The HRC statement continues: “All users, including persons with disabilities, should have greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services, whether or not they are offered free of charge. In this context, network neutrality and openness are important objectives. Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction.”
Yet, Senate Bill 968 -- the PROTECT IP Act or "Internet Blacklist Bill" -- would give the government the power to force Internet service providers, search engines, and other "information location tools" to block users' access to sites that have been accused of copyright infringement.
HRC: “For us, one principle is very basic: The same rights that people have offline - freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek information, freedom of assembly and association, amongst others - must also be protected online.”
But the Obama administration is facilitating a "three strikes" style deal between Internet Service Providers and intellectual property rights holders to reduce bandwidth and restrict web access to certain sites for users who have been accused of copyright infringement.
If you can’t stand for such hypocrisy on the part of the US government, sign our petitions below:
California's own Google and Verizon released a new plan for how the Internet should operate, if they got to rule the world. We'd keep Net Neutrality for the wired Internet, at least for consumers not corporations, but they could set up fast lanes and slow lanes for the wireless Internet. Wireless is of course the future of the Internet, but then again that is exactly the point.
Eliminating Net Neutrality could destroy independent blogs like Calitics that can't afford to pay for our readers to reach us on faster connections.
The media has trashed their evil deal and over 300,000 people have signed an open letter demanding Google drop this proposal.
It's a giant corporate power-grab and Google who claims to "do no evil" is doing exactly that with this evil plan. That's why MoveOn, the PCCC (where I work), CREDO Action, Color of Change and Free Press are holding a rally at noon tomorrow in front of Google headquarters. The event is at the corner of Amphitheatre Parkway and Charleston Road in Mountain View. Click here to RSVP.
For people in the San Francisco area, there will be a bus leaving from the San Francisco Opera House at 301 Van Ness at 11 a.m. You have to RSVP to get on the bus, as seats are limited.
This deal can be stopped, but only if President Obama and FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski understand just how angry we are at the prospect of our rights being trampled online by Google and other corporate giants. So, please join us, or if you don't live in the Bay Area, pass along the info to your friends.
The final numbers on the stimulus package are trickling out. Some of the baseline investments are here:
* Investments in Infrastructure and Science - $120 billion
* Investments in Health - $14.2 billion
* Investments in Education and Training - $105.9 billion
* Investments in Energy, including over $30 billion in infrastructure - $37.5 billion
* Helping Americans Hit Hardest by the Economic Crisis - $24.3 billion
* Law Enforcement, Oversight, Other Programs - $7.8 billion
It's unquestionable that the conference report is worse than the House bill but better than the Senate. It costs less than the Senate bill while providing more stimulus. Some bad spending like the clean coal "FutureGen" project is out, along with some of the worst corporate tax breaks. Mass transit spending is up, the child tax credit was partially restored to House levels (now kicking in after $3,000 in income), and the state fiscal stabilization fund gets around $54 million (but that includes funding for school construction). You can find the full summary here.
There are some very solid elements to the bill. White House economists estimate that the package will create or save 396,000 jobs in California and 3.5 million nationwide. This is a down payment on a new generation of investment in America.
However, like with most Congressional sausage-making, there may be some rough patches. The worst is the allegation that Dianne Feinstein is trying to include filtering into the stimulus as part of the program to expand broadband capacity across the country.
The Open Internet Coalition - which includes groups like Public Knowledge, Free Press and the Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) - is applauding the more than $2 billion expected to be in the stimulus bill for broadband build-out in rural or underserved areas. They say not only will building out high-speed Internet instantly create jobs, but giving people in those areas more access to the Internet will spur small-business creation and other growth [...]
These groups are also over-the-moon about the fact that the Senate bill has a non-discrimination, interconnection requirement that essentially says any provider receiving stimulus funding has to make sure they provide equal access to everyone over their network (part of the so-called "net neutrality" debate). The House version requires the FCC to define "open access," which essentially calls for carriers to share their networks with competitors.
But they're worried Hollywood is still trying to insert a content filtering provision via Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., at the last minute. Feinstein has been trying to add language specifying that Internet service provider (ISPs) may engage in "reasonable network management" ... "such as" efforts to combat illegal activity like "child pornography and copyright infringement." In essence, some argue, ISPs would be able to monitor any content coming to and from your computer, just in case there was some copyrighted material violating fair use, or kiddie porn in there.
But groups like the Motion Picture Association of America stress the "network management" angle of the bill ("filtering" is a nasty word around these parts). After all, it's hard to argue against stopping kiddie porn from being sent over one's pipes. I've left a message with Feinstein's press office to see what the status of her amendment is. It doesn't appear to be in there, but I'll let you know if she plans on trying to stick it in at some point.
"Of course we see huge privacy invasions from this sort of thing," said Cathy Sloan of CCIA.
Now, some caveats. There was a hyperventilating story in the UK Register claiming that this would kill net neutrality. As stated earlier, there are open access provisions in the stimulus, and it doesn't appear that this amendment even made it into the final version. This looks to me to be more of a privacy and anti-competition issue.
In another part of that story, Henry Waxman was implicated. His office has assured multiple constituents, including yours truly, that he has had nothing to do with any filtering amendment.
That's not to say that we shouldn't be concerned. DiFi is allegedly trying to pay back a corporate constituent with a highly invasive amendment that would certainly violate the spirit if not the letter of privacy laws. And of course this kind of monitoring is a slippery slope, as are most IP issues. At the root I agree with John Cole:
As baseball season is getting close, I would like to propose a trade. We give the Republicans Dianne Feinstein and a PTBNL and they give us Olympia Snowe. This is a solid trade for us. With Judd Gregg at commerce, we would almost complete the New England rout, and Feinstein, as a newly minted Republican, will go down to certain defeat in California. Additionally, there is nothing in this agreement that says the PTBNL can't be Nelson or Lieberman.
The last time the FCC gathered public comment on Net Neutrality, Comcast paid people to fill seats so that people who care about an open and free internet couldn't get in the building. Next week, the FCC is coming to Stanford, Thursday from noon until 7 PM. Public comment is slated for 4:30 and with Comcast currently under official FCC investigation after the AP busted them for data discrimination, expect problems getting seats.
We are in a unique moment in history when we can help to decide whether we have a closed Internet controlled by a small handful of giant corporations, or an open Internet controlled by the people who use it. Now is the time to speak up for an open internet free from corporate gatekeepers.
It is rare for all five members of the Federal Communications Commission to leave Washington, D.C., and they want to hear from you. There will be a public comment period - come speak up to save the Internet!
(Bumped as a sign of respect for a campaign I can't see declaring. But I believe that despite the reasoning jumps in this diary, if this were to happen this deserves more exposure. - promoted by Bob Brigham)
I'm a big fan of Larry Lessig's blog, which used to be called Lessigblog, and now Lessig 2.0. Howard Dean blogged there in 2003 and for the 2008 nomination he's supporting Barack Obama. His work at Stanford and legal/philosophical work is legendary. So it was with great excitement I found a diary at Daily Kos published earlier in the week, with a little bit of supporting evidence, suggesting that Lessig could announce he's running for congress. It might even be as soon as this week:
A quick note by Brian: This is kinda off topic, but I wanted to mention the Regional Platform meetings being held around the state to talk about the California Democratic Party's platform. Here's the schedule of events.
As I mentioned, the CDP affirmed their support for net neutrality this weekend with a strong resolution that reflected the concerns of both labor interests and the progressive movement. Brad Parker of PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) commended the process in the Sunday session as proof that the Progressive Caucus and the more institutional elements of the CDP can work together. On that score alone, it's a win.
The best part, by the way, was that Speed Matters (the CWA's astroturf campaign) spent major dollars creating a glossy brochure that they put on everybody's seat this morning, and it included what they thought would be the resolution. Biggest waste of money I've ever seen. Ha!
As for how to translate this into policy, since after all it is merely a nonbinding resolution, that's what I'd like to address. These resolutions sit on some corner of the CDP website and collect e-dust. They have no meaning unless they are publicized. So here's what I propose.
Every Democratic member of Congress and the state legislature should be getting calls this week. You should say, "Hello, I'm a constituent, the California Democratic Party just passed a resolution supporting the preservation of a free and open Internet. I would like (the congresscritter) to abide by the wishes of his/her party and support any legislation codifying the principle of net neutrality. If you would like to look at the text I can fax it to you." Let's hold our representatives to the demands of the Party they represent, as well as their constituents.
The preservation of a free and open Internet is critical to the continued innovation and entrepreneurship of this country, as well as the free flow of information needed for a well-informed citizenry and the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly. We can move this forward in California. We know that, at the state level, Mark Leno sought to introduce net neutrality legislation back in February. That needs to return next year and we need to organize around it right now.
This can also work for other resolutions, especially the one on parole and sentencing reform that passed this weekend. Really they are completely useless unless publicized in this manner. Let's allow them to have some impact, otherwise the hard work crafting them and managing them on the Resolutions Committee goes to naught, and nobody wants that.
On the flip, I've added the resolution text if you want to fax it to your legislators. Please call Congress and the State Legislature today.
The merged resolution that came out of negotiations between the Progressive Caucus and the Labor Caucus (specifically Brad Parker of PDA and Jim Gordon of CWA) yielded a very favorable document that was passed through the Resolutions Committee. In addition, a resolution in support of parole and sentencing reform passed the committee and is on its way to passage. There's definitely a different feeling at this meeting; because it's not as high-profile as a convention, the hard work of progressive activists is being rewarded. I think that the whole resolutions process is a SYMBOLIC exercise that gives you a sense of where the rank and file of the party is going ideologically, and certainly it's becoming more progressive. There's still a lot of work to be done to turn that symbolism into some real action; it involves making in-roads in county committees and building a progressive bench. But I think some of the old guard are worried (more on that later).
The new net neutrality language, which I think offers some excellent framing devices, on the flip:
I know this isn't strictly California, but net neutrality matters to the future of this blog. The FCC has requested public comments on Net Neutrality. SaveTheInternet.com has a great page to let you submit comments to the FCC. Please, think about submitting a comment, and helping to ensure that the Internet is there for political organizing in the future. A good definition of net neutrality over the flip...
Two weeks may have passed between the Democratic Convention and today, but that hasn't stopped us from speculating over whatactuallyhappened during that weekend. During these two weeks, everyone seems to have developed a theory on who knew what ahead of time, who was conspiring to silence the progressives, and who was really behind the mysterious quorum call. Two weeks have passed since then, and I'd like to do my part to end all the speculation NOW.
Last Thursday, I hopped on over to OC Drinking Liberally. John Hanna, Co-chair of the Resolutions Committee, also happened to be there. Pretty soon, hekebolos showed up, and we all went to the back room of Memphis to discuss what really happened at the convention. Later on, we also talked about what we can do better next time, but I'll talk about that part of the discussion another time.
Right now, I'm inviting you to follow me after the flip to find out WHAT REALLY HAPPENED TO ALL THOSE RESOLUTIONS. I have been collecting information from a few brave individuals for quite some time now, and my meeting with John Hanna on Thursday put an end to my own speculation on all these rumors. So why not join me after the flip, so that you can also toss the speculation and just find out what happened?
Maybe this is why we have a Computers and Internet Caucus, from the comments:
I keep reading this Net Neutrality pablum with absolutely NO DISCUSSION about what the heck it is. Sounds soooo easy to support right ? Like Bush's Clean Skies Initiative or his Healthy Forests plan, why don't some of you stop complaining and start explaining ? I'm on the Labor Caucus and I'm gonna believe my brothers & sisters at CWA unless you start the education process.
OK, after the flip, because the CDP would look awful for siding with the wrong side in the labor split over the issue.
OK, so many of you have probably seen this diary by now. And yes, I can understand the frustration of seeing CDP Resolutions Committee Co-chair John Hanna coming here to "talk down at us". However if you look beyond the first comment, you just might find that Hanna is offering some pretty good advice. Hopefully, we're all beyond anger at this point, and we're ready to learn how to be more successful in passing resolutions and holding the Democratic Party to its true values .
Now I know that all of this is frustrating. I know that it sucks when we can't get the party to agree to such no-brainers like net neutrality and deauthorizing the Iraq War. However, there are some important lessons to be learned from our failures.
John Hanna, along with other knowledgable folks in previous comments, hinted at some good secrets to success for next time around, and I'd like to talk more about these after the flip...
I wanted to give everyone an opportunity to see this comment left at the bottom of my first post titled "Setting the Record Straight". Thank you John for coming by to clarify. I will be the first to admit that I do not have a very nuanced understanding of the resolutions process and indeed there were some inaccuracies in my post. Most of us are very new to this process and we are learning.
Obviously, this is happening in a very public way, but one that will lead to greater understanding. It seems to me that the amount of misinformation is a direct result of poor communication about the process. Given the vast turnover within the delegate population, I think it makes sense to rethink how you communicate the process to the delegates in an ongoing manner at the convention.
(I have some updated information and want to make sure everyone gets a chance to see it. - promoted by juls)
And the rest of the resolutions they did not want to have heard...
I learned a lot about the process of how resolutions are dealt with at California Democratic Party Conventions this weekend. It is not particularly democratic, which is not surprising. The party leaders decide what has a chance of getting approved and use the process to push off to the side any other proposed resolutions.
Take for instance the net neutrality resolution, which one would think should be heard in front of the Computer and Internet Caucus. Instead we learned upon arriving at the convention that it has been, along with a bunch of other resolutions, referred to another caucus, thereby eliminating any potential avenue for its viability at this party meeting. There is no process whereby you can appeal this move by collecting signatures, or any other appeals process.
So how and why did it get referred to the Labor Caucus?
Net neutrality, as a resolution for this convention, is in effect dead. The resolution has been referred to the Labor Caucus, and that ruling will stand.
Now there is some good news. Brad Parker, a member of PDA and a staunch supporter of Net Neutrality, is on the Labor Caucus. He has spoken to people on that caucus and people on the Resolutions Committee, and he believes that he can get a strong resolution to the floor by the next convention. So it's a waiting game.
What has not been resolved is the idea that you can refer a resolution to a caucus, which as I said is unprecedented. Parker intends to take it up in the Resolutions Committee happening right now, and if not there then in the Rules Committee. The shenanigans pulled here were unconscionable.
About the impeachment resolution: there is no doubt in my mind that the new substitute language will become one of the top 10 resolutions brought to the floor tomorrow. The Resolutions Committee members would not be able to leave that room if they didn't place it in the top 10.
No word on getting the Audit Committee to a floor vote, I'll check on that.
And the Calitics staff did an exclusive interview with Sen. Christopher Dodd, we should have something on that (with pics) soon.
The CDP created a new rule with regard to resolutions in this convention. In order to be able to bring a resolution to a floor vote, it either has to make it through the Resolutions committee or be outright rejected. If it is referred or tabled, it cannot be brought to the floor. This is a brand new rule that nobody anticipated, that was not voted on by the delegates, and that seems, dare I say, undemocratic.
And this is exactly what was done with the Net Neutrality resolution at the convention. Worse, they referred it to the Labor Caucus. Now, there is absolutely no precedent for referring a resolution to a caucus. It's never been done before. There's no mechanism for the Labor Caucus to do anything with it. This was simply a way to push aside the Net Neutrality resolution in order to hope it is forgotten. We in the netroots cannot let this happen. It's antithetical to the notion of democracy and a free & open Internet.
(BTW, this was also done with respect to other resolutions, including impeachment, Iraq, and Iran resolutions put forward by Progressive Democrats of America. I spoke with Marcy Winograd about this earlier, and there will be some fireworks at the next resolutions committee meeting at 5pm PT.)
This email just hit my inbox, from Democracy for America:
If you're like me, on November 8 you were left both overjoyed with the successes nationwide and wondering what happened in California. Or I should say, what DIDN'T happen in California.
And then came the news of the CDP's November 7 donation of $4,000,000 to Fabian Nunez. Which left many wondering, why the CDP had that much of cash left over after such a hard fought election? And since they did, why the weren't immediately plowing it into field organizing on the ground in preparation for 2008, which is decending on us with a vengence?
If you're like me, you're more than a bit annoyed with the CDP right now, you're looking for ways to set a new agenda and map out a new direction for the CDP in time for the 2008 campaign season. Look no further!
DSCC delegates within the Democrats of Greater Riverside are advancing the resolutuon below, and we are seeking compatriots around California to join in co-sponsoring and endorsing this resolution.
The April CDP convention is going to have some major issues that will send a clear signal as to the direction the CDP wants to go. So far we have this reform and the common sense support for net neutrality. Reso after the jump for people to introduce in local Democratic Party clubs.
Like so many issues in recent years, given the paralysis at the federal level, states are stepping up to make progress on issues important to them. Today five Western governors, 4 Democrats and Arnold Schwarzenegger, agreed to work together to reduce greenhouse gas emissions with a cap-and-trade system. Net neutrality is almost the reverse of this process. Having been stymied somewhat at the federal level, telcos like AT&T and others are moving into the states with cable franchising bills and other pernicious legislation designed to codify a two-tiered Internet into state law. This is not acceptable, and we must work at the party level to ensure that a free and open Internet is preserved.
This is a breaking news item. I just spoke to Assemblyman Mark Leno, D-SF, about his introduction of net neutrality legislation in the Assembly tomorrow. The bill will be based off of the Maryland bill that was introduced by Delegate Herman Taylor of MD.
The importance of this legislation can hardly be overstated. California is the largest player in the technology industry; it only makes sense that California should be a leader on this issue. As Matt Stoller mentioned, progressives have often times been focused solely on the federal government, but I, and many others, have been arguing for a long time that the states, especially this state, are a great opportunity for progressive legislation. The market power of California makes it impossible to exit the state. See the history of the catalytic converter if you don't believe me.
Asm. Leno is thoroughly informed of the issues of net neutrality, and certainly isn't looking to pick fights. There will be big businesses on both sides of this issue, Google and AT&T are both powerful corporations within the state. However, Leno understands the importance of protecting the internet's first amendment from those that would prioritize one site over another. This is a colossal step forward for everybody who works and plays on the Internet.
This is a breaking news item. I just spoke to