Timothy Karr: 4 ways 2014 was big for the Internet

The death of the Internet is at hand.Sound familiar? That’s what Internet pioneer Robert Metcalfe predicted in 1995, when he wrote that spiraling demands on the fledgling network would cause the Internet to “catastrophically collapse” by 1996.

Metcalfe, of course, was dead wrong: The Internet is still chugging along, with a predicted 3 billion users by year’s end.

Still, the Internet’s fate feels distinctly uncertain as 2014 draws to a close. At stake is whether the Internet remains a democratic, user-powered network — or falls under the control of a few powerful entities.

Here are the four Internet issues that played leading roles this year:

1. Net Neutrality

Net Neutrality is hard-wired into the Internet as we know it. In a neutral network, users control their experience without their Internet service providers interfering, filtering, or censoring. This revolutionary principle is under attack from the phone and cable companies that control access in the United States.

In a court decision last January, Verizon successfully challenged the Federal Communications Commission’s ability to protect Net Neutrality, setting in motion a year-long effort to restore the agency’s authority. More than 4 million Americans, including President Barack Obama, have contacted the FCC, with the overwhelming majority demanding real Net Neutrality protections.

Watch for a decision on the matter as early as January 2015. Momentum is now swinging in favor of keeping the Internet open — thanks in large part to the forceful public response.

2. Consolidation

The Internet is designed to function as a decentralized network — meaning that control over information doesn’t fall into the hands of a few gatekeepers, but instead rests with everyone who goes online.

This has enabled diverse voices to flourish. It’s amplified the concerns of protesters from Ferguson to Hong Kong, given underrepresented communities a platform, and allowed startup businesses to reach millions of new customers.

What’s missing is choice among Internet-access providers: Too many communities can choose from only one or two. We need policies that will foster competition, which in turn would lower costs, improve services, and ensure that no single company gains too much control over content.

This year, Comcast and AT&T are attempting to consolidate their control over all-things-Internet. Comcast, the largest U.S. cable company, wants to gobble up the second largest, Time Warner Cable. If regulators approve the Comcast merger, the company would become the only traditional cable provider available to nearly two-thirds of Americans.

Meanwhile, AT&T wants to take over DIRECTV.

It’s up to the FCC and the Justice Department to block these mergers, which would create colossal, monopoly-minded behemoths. The government’s blessing of these deals would teleport us back to a time when just a few media moguls controlled most public discourse.

3. Online Privacy

In 2013, former NSA contractor Edward Snowden exposed mass spying programs that violate our civil liberties. This wholesale invasion of privacy has chilled free expression online.

There were signs of hope that 2014 would bring new legislation to rein in these government snooping powers. The USA Freedom Act, while imperfect, would have curtailed the NSA’s bulk collection of our phone records and required more oversight and transparency of its surveillance programs.

The Senate, however, voted not to consider the bill in November, leaving everyone at the mercy of an agency with a voracious appetite for data.

4. Community Networks

With big Internet providers like Comcast gaining notoriety for dismal customer service, municipal broadband networks have gained traction everywhere from New York City to Monmouth, Oregon.

It’s easy to see why: The big providers often refuse to build networks in low-income or rural communities where potential customers can’t afford to pay their sky-high rates.

The rise of homegrown Internet infrastructure has prompted industry lobbyists to introduce state-level legislation to smother such efforts. There are at least 20 such statutes on the books. But in June, the FCC stepped in with a plan to preempt these state laws, giving communities the support they need to affordably connect more people.

If you value free speech, keep an eye on these four issues as 2015 gets underway. To ensure an Internet that’s open, fast, secure, and affordable, contact the FCC, call your members of Congress, and support efforts to build a network that works for everyone.

Timothy Karr is the senior director of strategy for Free Press (FreePress.net). This piece is distributed by OtherWords.org. 

Candace Clement/Timothy Karr: Battling for Net Neutrality

Earlier this month, President Barack Obama added his voice to the nearly 4 million people who have urged the Federal Communications Commission to preserve the open Internet and protect free speech online.

The president’s statement was a clear, concise directive on how the FCC should handle the question of Net Neutrality — the principle that prevents Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with online traffic by creating “fast lanes” for a few powerful companies while relegating the rest of us to a slower tier of service.

Obama first expressed his support for Net Neutrality when he was a presidential candidate in 2007, and he’s since spoken in favor of the principle on several occasions.

But this time was different: Obama finally got specific, calling on the FCC to reclassify broadband under Title II of the Communications Act. Reclassifying would provide the solid legal foundation needed to stop companies like AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon from becoming gatekeepers online.

Obama’s statement was a high-profile moment in a year where a once-obscure issue has drawn front-page coverage — and galvanized activists nationwide.

The street outside the FCC’s headquarters was home to a two-week protest encampment in May. And a rally in Washington, D.C. drew huge crowds on May 15, when FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler released proposed rules that would allow rampant discrimination online.

Activists shadowed Obama on a fundraising trip to California over the summer. Protests took place in Manhattan and Philadelphia on September 15, the deadline for comments on the FCC proposal.

On Sept.  10, 40,000 Web sites participated in the Internet Slowdown, an online day of action where sites greeted visitors with slow-loading pop-ups to show the world what a non-neutral Internet would look like.

Earlier this month, in response to reports that the FCC was considering new rules that would still permit the creation of fast lanes, vigils were held everywhere from Austin to Boston to Chicago to Minneapolis. And over the course of the fall, people’s hearings have taken place in Brooklyn, San Francisco, and Texas.

It’s important to note that Net Neutrality draws support from both sides of the aisle. ANovember University of Delaware poll, for example, revealed that over 80 percent of both Democrats and Republicans support keeping the Internet open.

Is any of this getting through to Wheeler?

In response to the president’s statement, Wheeler reportedly told a group of industry lobbyists that his challenge is figuring out how to “split the baby.” The comment suggests he could still be trying to write rules that pay lip service to the open Internet but ultimately allow phone and cable giants to create fast and slow lanes online.

Despite the overwhelming public and political support for Net Neutrality, the chairman — who previously served as a top lobbyist for the cable industry — so far seems incapable of breaking with his old bosses.

The coalition backing Net Neutrality is as broad and diverse as it is deep. Surely this ocean of support means more than the whispers of the many phone and cable lobbyists who come knocking at the FCC.

Wheeler himself claims to oppose the creation of fast lanes. But so far he hasn’t backed those claims up with a proposal that would actually prevent them.

What more does Wheeler need to do the right thing? He now has Obama’s backing and a strong public mandate for real Net Neutrality.

The future of the open Internet is too important to be left to business as usual in Washington. The Internet service providers’ political influence may be formidable, but public opinion favors real Net Neutrality and nothing less.

Now it’s up to Chairman Wheeler to make it happen.

Candace Clement is the Internet campaign director for Free Press, where Timothy Karr is the senior director of strategy. This originated on OtherWords.org.