Free Press Newswire

Four influential members of Congress, fed up with the Google-Verizon "industry-centered Net Neutrality policy framework," are now demanding that the government act in the public interest to enforce real Network Neutrality.

This week saw yet another sally in the battle over Net Neutrality. Verizon and Google jointly proposed that wired access to the internet remain open and as is, while mobile access -- well, it's complicated. And so we offer this musical allegory to help put the players in context.

Massive corporations are cooking up backroom deals right now that could end this era of online innovation and fundamentally alter how we use the Internet. And there is little to stop them -- unless we act now.

According to recent filings from the Republican Governors Association, News Corp., parent company of Fox News and the New York Post, donated $1 million to the RGA this June.

It is a popular conservative myth to suggest that the "mainstream media" is a liberal lapdog to the Obama administration, that reporters favor the president and that he returns the admiration. In fact, this administration has pursued a quiet campaign against the news media and their sources, more aggressively attacking those who ferret out confidential information than even the George W. Bush administration did.

Blind and deaf consumers, who have fought to make home phones and TV more accessible, say they are being left behind on the Web and many mobile devices. But legislation is in the works to put pressure on consumer electronics companies that revolutionized an earlier generation of technology for the vision- and hearing-impaired.

The "legislative" framework proposal" on Net Neutrality released by Google and Verizon was a shock and a disappointment for those who had bought into Google's motto of "Don't be evil." It's a sad example of what happens when corporations are allowed to write regulatory rules -- and why the FCC needs to re-seize the reins on broadband regulation.

In a recent joint statement, Google and Verizon explained how they imagine the future of the Internet: Open and free Internet for all -- to a point. They believe some services should travel at faster speeds for a fee. The FCC says it should be the one to regulate the Internet, not the free market. Who should control the Internet?

In a rare instance of unity, religious broadcast network Educational Media Foundation and grassroots radio advocate Prometheus Radio Project have found common ground regarding the future of Low Power FM and translators.

A group of four Democratic politicians claims that a proposal announced last week by Google and Verizon does not give the federal government enough authority to regulate the Internet.

Has British Telecom just blown a hole in the concept of Net Neutrality? And if the telecom giant has done that, is this an issue of any concern at all to British Web users?

I don't want anyone's private internet. I don't want anyone's two-tiered system. I use the public internet. I love the public internet. And Verizon and Google may think they can kill off the public internet, but they underestimate the will of the public. People will keep it alive, innovative, and thriving, even if they do it for free. Because people love the public internet.

Verizon and Google announced a proposal to regulate the Internet that could foster digital innovation. But it also could force many users of the information superhighway onto a dusty back road. The FCC must flex its muscle now to ensure that the Internet continues to play a public service role.

Does the Google-Verizon pact signal "the cable-ization of the Internet?" Would the creation of a premium fast-lane for well-capitalized content providers put start-ups and other Web small fry at a competitive disadvantage? No one knows for sure. But the public has too much at stake to let the Web's largest commercial interests write the traffic laws that will govern the Internet unilaterally.

The Google-Verizon Net Neutrality proposal gives broadband providers lots of leeway to offer preferential treatment to some and to choke off others. This is not an adequate framework to guide Internet policy, especially in a market as concentrated as the United States. The FCC can best set reasonable rules to ensure that the open Internet survives into the future.

The Google headquarters, known informally as the Googleplex in Mountain View, Calif., has been under siege from protesters. The crowd gathered to protest against the search company's recent manoeuvrings on Net Neutrality.

While it was not the biggest protest seen in California, the fact that 100 people could be bothered to show up and chant at Google's head office was still saying something. The protesters were upset that Google and Verizon want to treat wired Internet services differently from wireless.

The battle for the future of the Internet has reached Kansas. Net Neutrality supporters say that allowing Internet service providers to speed traffic for some will mean slowing it down for others, allowing huge companies that can pay for preferential service to dominate the Web and shove aside smaller rivals. They want regulations ensuring that won't happen.

As Google employees dined al fresco, a hundred protesters descended on the company. They were there to complain about what they saw as Google's about-face on how Internet access should be regulated and to deliver a petition with about 300,000 signatures.

Net Neutrality talks at the FCC were close to producing a stricter deal than a proposal offered by Verizon and Google last week that ultimately undermined the government-brokered meetings.