1. Last year, the FCC eliminated the net neutrality rules and replaced them with principles. To date, what have been the real world consequences of that action? And what are the potential long term consequences of that action?

Thanks for inviting me to this discussion. The elimination of Net Neutrality in the summer of 2005 started a major debate over the future of the Internet. Since then, more than a million citizens have come to the defense of the free and open Internet. Millions more may be learning about Net Neutrality for the first time tonight. Hopefully it's the start of a much broader conversation on these crucial issues.

The Internet has always been a neutral platform for communications and commerce. The only reason that we have not seen significant changes yet is that we’re in the middle of a major political battle over this issue; the phone and cable companies have been on their best behavior. But we should all listen very carefully to what their own executives are saying about their plans for the future of the Internet.

If left unchecked, network owners like AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Comcast will destroy the greatest engine for democratic participation and economic innovation the world has ever known. This is not speculation. They have told us so, time and again.

The CEOs of the major telephone companies declared in the pages of Business Week, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal that they intend to discriminate and create a new business model that transfers value and control over Internet content into their hands. The manufacturers who sell them equipment have already built the software and electronics that will make network discrimination a reality.

In December 2005, the Washington Post reported that William Smith, CTO of BellSouth “told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.” But they won’t stop with Google and Yahoo. They will translate this logic of discrimination onto every Web site on the Internet. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin has publicly declared that he has no problem with this, and that his rules won’t stop them.

The phone and cable companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Washington lobbyists, campaign contributions and PR firms in that Congress will give them the green light to trash the longstanding Net Neutrality principles that have made the Internet what it is today.

The networks claim they would never discriminate against content. Yet they don’t want to see discrimination made illegal. If they aren’t going to block or degrade content, why should they care about regulations? All we’re asking for the return of what we’ve always had— the basic protections for consumers that have always governed the Internet.

2. There’s been a lot of discussion about the potential of the Internet — for business, for communication, for democracy. What effect will the outcome of the net neutrality debate in Washington have on that potential?

Net Neutrality protects two fundamental American values: free speech and the free market.

These two values have united the massive coalition of political organizations and businesses that support Net Neutrality.

The reason is simple. A neutral Internet is a network without barriers to entry, without gatekeepers, and without discrimination of any kind. It is open to anyone with a good idea to build an audience or sell a product. We have seen the brilliant success of this model throughout the short history of the Internet. We want to see this success continue.

Eliminating Net Neutrality will undermine innovation, investment and competition. In the words of Internet architect Vint Cerf, the Internet allows “innovation without permission.” Remember that the name Internet brands of today were just “good ideas in garages” a decade ago.

College kids created Google. A hobbyist conceived the idea for eBay. A teenager wrote the code for Instant Messaging. Some of the most popular sites on the Internet right now — MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube — didn’t exist three years ago. None of them would have emerged without Net Neutrality.

This technological revolution keeps turning because the Internet is an unrestricted free marketplace of ideas where innovators rise and fall on their merits. How is it possible that a small group of bloggers, many without a single journalism class, have a combined audience larger than the readership of the New York Times? How is it possible that a company like YouTube could reach so many millions of viewers in 18 months that Google buys them for $1.6 billion? These success stories will only happen on an Internet that is neutral.

The open Internet has proven that the best ideas rarely come from those with the deepest pockets. The network owners want to stifle that creativity by tossing aside Net Neutrality. Imagine the Internet without Network Neutrality. How many venture capitalists would embrace a business plan if the first line reads: “Strike a favorable deal with AT&T”? The engine of ideas and innovation will grind to a halt. The economic cost to the country—say nothing of the democratic costs—would be enormous.

3. Both those in favor of and those against net neutrality regulation argue that they have the best interest of the consumer in mind. Explain why you believe that net neutrality will or will not benefit Internet users.

The debate over Network Neutrality is, at its base, a decision about who will control the Internet — consumers and content creators in a competitive marketplace, or network owners in an anti-competitive marketplace?/

The end of Network Neutrality would mean fundamental, negative changes to the Internet. That’s why every major consumer organization in the nation – Consumers Union, Consumer Federation, U.S. PIRG, etc. -- is publicly committed to meaningful and enforceable Network Neutrality. That means no discrimination against any content based on its ownership or source.

Permitting content discrimination on the Internet for the first time would be a disaster for consumers. On the neutral Internet, consumers have ALL the control over an unlimited selection of content. Giving the network owners gatekeeper control over content takes the decisions away from millions of users and puts it in the hands of a small cartel of telecom executives.

Who will end up in the slow lane? Anyone without the cash or the connections to negotiate fast-lane deals with AT&T or Comcast. Basically, anyone that lacks deep pockets will be pushed aside.

Consumers should choose winners and losers in the content marketplace based on the merits of a Web site or service. Without Net Neutrality the network owners have a strong financial incentive to undermine the free market and overcharge everyone. Any economics 101 student will tell you that a scarcity of choice leads to higher prices for goods. Do you really trust these companies to look after your best interests?

It is virtually impossible to spin this as something positive, though I'm sure our able-penned friend Mr. McCurry will do his best.

Net Neutrality should be defended at all costs. Big telecommunication companies just want more money and this is their number one plan. I know that sites like mine (www.ghandiburger.com - isn't finished, cut me some slack!) would be the first to go. A world without Wikipedia or YouTube or Blogger gives me the chills...

I'm against onerous government regulation and think a competitive market can do a much better job of keeping the 'Net democratic than any bureaucrat can. But a free market isn't necessarily a competitive one. How competitive is the broadband / ISP market today? Are there a lot of choices, or do most people only have a few options?

Just watched the show and was very happy to see something about this issue on television... This issue must be raised as load as possible in as many venues as possible...

I am also trying to get the word out as best as I can: http://www.savenetneutrality.com

Fantastic program! Thanks for doing such good work.

This is a very important dialogue. Unless local broadcast opportunities continue their presence, local communities like ours in the southern tier of NY state have no voice for our culture

What can one very concerned citizen do to stop this? The media MUST remain free and open to all people and all opinions. It is especially important at this time of madness in our country.

I am poor, so I can't contribute money. I don't have a car, so I can't get out and go to meetings, but I am very concerned, and I want us to have an open, democratic society, where all opinions can be expressed and are available to everyone, and where the media are available to the populace.

Please tell me. What can I do? How can I help?

Sincerely,

Lyn Miner
Columbia Heights, Minnesota
xquill@yahoo.com

How can anyone stop legislators from railroading this type of legislation through when the very people who have benefitied from it (Mainstream media)keep it a secret from and distort the truth to the public that would oppose it. I don't mean to make it sound hopeless, but it is. The best we can hope for is a complete change of Congress

According to retired Secretary of the Navy J Lehman, as reported to The New York Sun's Liz Peek approximately two weeks ago, Homeland Security in the greater NYC area, although now known to be the best in the nation, badly needs access to radio waves that are not accessible due to big media. Although this is off the main focal points of the Bill Moyers program just aired in NY, it is directly related.

McCurry says that competition has lowered prices 20 to 40% -- so why, if he favors competition so much, are the people who have hired him trying to merge AT&T and BellSouth? Doesn't this merger, and the merger before that, and the merger before that, decrease competition? If there were hundreds of choices of who'd provide my Internet connection, I'd be less concerned, but there's only one, or two. So competition is not working!

Oh, by the way, Moore's Law alone would decrease prices by 50% every 18 months in a truly free market.

Yes I think that the internet allows us freedom of speach ,now if we were at a debate and only the guys that were allowed to enter who paid the one million dollar fee to ask questions than about 99% of America would be out in the cold like they are now in big media so the real problems facing americans would not be heard only the messages of the dictators that control what we see and hear. this is monopoly at its finest. P.S every time theres an election and the republicans think its a tight race theres always a terror scare. Ithink this is all bs with the football games coming up this is exactly what i mean.

Eliminating Net Neutrality may indeed spru broadband investment/rollout. Is that what countries like South Korea and Japan have done to have such remarkable service and penetration, or have they found a way to promote high-speed Internet without allowing discriminatory behavior?

Great show, I found it very informative and interesting. I am very worried about the big corporations taking control of the internet. It has been a wonderful place where anyone, no matter who or what they are, could share. This would change if the big companies have their way.

Public involvement does work. In the six months since the SavetheInternet.com Coalition was launched, millions of Americans have joined the campaign, spoken out for Internet freedom and put Congress and the phone companies on notice.

This grassroots movement barely existed at the beginning of 2006. Now we’re on the verge of toppling one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington.

The reason for our success? Organized and overwhelming public support for a free and open Internet. If Congress can’t pass a communications bill in 2006, it will have to start over in January. It’s possible that we will have a House and Senate that are more sympathetic to Net Neutrality. But don’t expect the phone companies to simply roll over in 2007.

If we hold out against the phone companies until 2007, we’ll have scored a victory of historic proportions.

Thanks for a good show. (It's remarkable the foresight of Hermann and Chomsky). The march of media consolidation is very threatening.

Please help us all know the numbers of Congressional bill or bills that would end internet neutrality.

Who are its friends and its opponents in Congress?

Thanks Bill for a burning issue so well handled.

As the owner of a small, home-based web design and graphic art company, I have a vested interest in being as accessible and affordable to as many people as possible. I fear the proposed toll road and fast lane will shut out a lot of people who need to get their message out. There needs to be people offering more access to the Internet, whether it is actual access or access in the form of affordable web design and hosting. Our entire economy will suffer if the large companies get control of the Internet.

The scoundrels you depicted make the Robber Barons look like pikers. They should be indicted for theft of public property: the airwaves, phone systems and cable operations and tried under the RICO statutes. The unbridled rapaciousness of those corporations and the collusion of SEC,FCC and practically every government department that has betrayed our trust is disgusting beyond contempt. Is this what our founding fathers envisioned for us???

Eliminating Net Neutrality would undoubtedly spur broadband investment/rollout. Is that what countries like South Korea and Japan have done to have such remarkable service and penetration, or have they found a way to promote high-speed Internet without allowing discriminatory behavior?

Mick McCurry comments:

Those worried about losing a voice only need to worry about the lack of bandwith capacity if there is no broadband to carry things like the telemedicine applications we saw at the beginning. That won't happen unless telcomms invest billions in upgrading their pipes. How do we propose to pay for that? Someone must. If you argue that the public needs a critical infrastructure like a high-speed internet, then have the courage to say it should be a public good, public built and regulated like a utility. That's what this program argues. Who on Bill Moyers' team is willing to stand up and put a public price and a revenue solution to that argument?
--Mike McCurry

Ben Scott comments:

It is great to see everyone posting this evening.

For folks who want more information, let me invite you to check out two websites: www.savetheinternet.com for Net Neutrality information and www.stopbigmedia.com for information about media ownership.

Inside myself, I'm losing hope for the future of our nation. Every activity of human interaction has become another avenue for commerce. We talk to each other...and someone sees our conversation as an exploitable market. The buring question for corporate
America is comtroll the financial flow. Jesus mada a statement regarding God & money... one must either love the one and hate the other or...well you probably know the rest.

One of the critical take aways I hope people get from this is how powerful citizens have become against "the powers that be."

While nearly 15 states passed laws before 2005 to stop local government from building broadband networks, only one state passed such a law in 2005. OTOH, the 14 other states in 2005 that considered banning municipal networks rejected the idea.

Why? Because people stood up and let their elected representatives know it would cost them to vote against muni networks.

We beat these guys last year. We can go on beating them this year. And next year.

In response to Karen, the broadcast bands are limited to (roughly) 88-108 MHZ for FM, and 540-1600 KHz for AM radio. The entire discussion on the show this evening centers around whether those stations should be owned by larger corporations or by local entities. This discussion has nothing to do with allocating other sections of the airwaves for first responders.

I feel sorry for Bill when he sits across from that phony Lou Dobbs on CNN from time to time. Bill must squirm in his seat when Dobbs starts preaching the opposite of what he practices on his show. Bill is an intellectual. Dobbs is a phony who is vefy clever at creating themes to sell his books.

While it was mentioned on the show it should be pointed out again. Net Neutrality is an issue of global importance for communication. The show concentrated on America's struggle with the issue but it reaches far beyond our own borders. The revolutionary aspect of what the web is has just begun. We should not let it be taken over by a handful of people whose only motive is profit. Thanks Bill and push PBS and Public Radio to do more to make this issue known.

Remember MediaOne? AT&T Local & Long Distance? AT&T Wireless?
AT&T tried to be a one-stop shop in the late 90's, buying up
seemingly everything in sight. Then, through their own
mismanagement, they failed miserably, selling off everything it
acquired, costing thousands of jobs until it was a mere shell of
itself. In comes Ed Whitacre to save the day, and POOF! 13,000
more jobs are gone (See Network World - 02-07-05 "What the AT&T
/ SBC deal means to you").

The whole purpose of the the Bell System divestiture in 1984 was
to encourage competition and break up a monopoly. Today, the
Bell System is almost completely whole again, with Verizon, AT&T
and Qwest owning the lion's share of the markets, selling voice,
data and long-distance services. In my neighborhood I have ZERO
choice of who my telephone carrier is. This merger of Bell South
and AT&T will only consolidate the market further for millions
more. They own almost all the CO switching for data and voice
and the "last mile" to virtually every home and business.

If the telcos and cablecos (the "broadcos") have their way with
network neutrality -- i.e., lack thereof -- the remonopolization
(or duopolization) will be worse than the old AT&T ever was,
because it will include not only transport but those
applications the broadcos choose to absorb as well. Thus, the
new monopolies will extend to the top of the protocol stack, not
just pertain to transport. The safeguards that might otherwise
still help (as limited in effectiveness as they always were, due
to ILEC truculence), like separate applications subsidiaries,
comparably efficient interconnection (open network
architecture), and the like, will be totally absent this time
around. In short, if the big players have their way on Net
Neutrality, then the entity that controls the loop is ALSO in a
position to control the applications and content users can
access.

And, the bigger they become the less responsive they become to
problems. Service has continued to degrade with each merger.

We've already seen broadcast media consolidated into a handful of companies from the 1996 Telecom Act. There are fewer voices and fewer choices out there now. When I worked in radio in the 80's there were no less than eight station owners in our market. Today, this market is dominated by Clear Channel and Infinity. Players like Radio One and Salem are relegated mostly to the AM dial. If Network Neutrality goes away, then the internet will be consolidated just like broadcast was in 1996. It will be a top-down model of control of information.

You all can go to http://www.savetheinternet.com/ to find out what bill may end net neutrality, see how your congressman stands, and learn more about keeping the internet open. There is also a petition there you can sign.

Wow! The AT&T, Verizon, Cable and Satellite TV broadcasters are paying millions to lobbyists and congress for my protection and to lower prices for me, the consumer. I'm so impressed. Please save net neutrality, the last stand for democracy.

I think that the bigger issue of global competitiveness gets lost while we focus on the left and right channels of the domestic debate. NOBODY can argue that neutrality doesn't influence that much bigger issue - where the US is behind most of the developed world. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for letting politics get this far with such an important economic issue.

I think that the bigger issue of global competitiveness gets lost while we focus on the left and right channels of the domestic debate. NOBODY can argue that neutrality doesn't influence that much bigger issue - where the US is behind most of the developed world. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves for letting politics get this far with such an important economic issue.

McCurry says, "If you argue that the public needs a critical infrastructure like a high-speed internet, then have the courage to say it should be a public good, public built and regulated like a utility."

But this is exactly what Lafayette Louisiana tried to do, and the telephone companies stopped them. First the telcos asked for a vote, then when the people spoke, the telcos lost. Then the telcos sued the Lafayette fiber program over every comma and period in every relevant law. "Who on Moyers team?" McCurry asks. C'mon Mike, the public can't even act in its own good without the telcos fighting them at every turn.

In response to Mr. McCurry's call out I respond as thus. It has been argued that a fee will be imposed, yes. But what is to stop the controllers, (AT&T, etc.) to impose larger fees on sites whose content is unfavorable to them? That is why legislation must be passed allowing for net neutrality. If we all must pay the burden, let us pay it equally, with no bias toward those with deep pockets.

thank you for another informative show. I am very concerned about the issue of internet neutrality as I was about the issue of media consolidation which you reported on when it happened. I do call my congressioal representatives but it doesn't change the outcomes- the voting public had better send a strong message soon & if there is a lame duck session of Congress held PLEASE keep a spotlight on it!

I believe that maintaining net neutrality is both imperative for freedom's sake as well as from an economic perspective. Like McCurry mentioned, many of the fantastic innovations we enjoy on the internet came from startups that had little entry cost. Corporations don't innovate at the same rate as small businesses do. Market advancement many times comes in the way of mergers and not via innovation. It is clearly in both the consumer's and citizen's best interest to see net neutrality remain.

It is interesting that your programing brought up the railroad barrons, Let's take a look back in history. Visit Historic Speedwell Village in Morristown , New Jersey owned by the Vail family. It was there the telegraph was invented, and then that iron works invested in Philadelphia called Baldwin, Vail & Company that produced locomotives, the family also invested in the Erie Railroad. Would not you know that the person who went before Congress the first time to promote a better safer nation by installing a telephone in everyone's home is to have a monopoly, and he was the Grandson in this Vail Family. Now AT&T is going before Congress a second time to promote a better safer nation by installing wireless internet service in everyone's home, and the only way to do it is to have a monopoly again. But we are not going to fall for that trick again, however this time there is global competition.

Conservative Republicans in Lafayette, LA, have the courage to suggest high-speed is should be treated as a public utility. The public will is there; the political will is not (Thanks, Mike.)

Our acceptance of corporate greed fosters corporate arrogance. I hope this show has awakened and inspired - and caused millions more to understand the critical need for maintaining net neutrality. How do we speak truth to power without control of the medium?

Inspiring show! I did an analysis of Senate candidates' advertised positions regarding Net Neutrality. My discoveries are posted at
http://pagenotes.com/blogs/NetNeutrality.htm.

Then I looked for a good way to donate to candidates in tight campaigns who actively support Net Neutrality. Since all but one of the candidates were Democrats, I settled for an Act Blue page:
http://www.actblue.com/page/savetheinternet

I encourage everyone to use these pages as tools for active support. I also invite constructive feedback in helping me maintain the accuracy and utililty of these pages.

The right thing is to keep the Internet free with no restrictions. Why can't our government do the right thing? What are these lobbyists in congress doing? Aren't they just buying our government with money from their employers.

well i enjoyed the show but I feel if our american company lost out that there lost it just business.we need a law that makes people in offices accountable for there action person gains.how can we trust congress..because big company lobbys congress and paid to make a law is this right...the value of america, where is it

Not sure I have ever seen such a one-sided report. It just seems to me that Moyers and team came into this with a point of view and only included sound bites that suppported it. And then surrounded it with incendiary language.

I had hoped for a much more balanced report. Frankly, this report makes me think that there is a hidden danger to "net neutrality." If not, why promegate such a one-sided argument?

Ben Scott comments:

Let me take up this idea of how we should build out the Information Superhighway.

What the phone companies have proposed is a false choice—EITHER we scrap net neutrality OR else we’ll never have broadband deployed widely in America. That’s nonsense. The notion that we must sacrifice the free and open Internet in order to give monopolists and duopolists the incentive to build networks is the phone company’s biggest lie. We need more competition between companies that provide access to the Internet, not less competition between companies that offer content on the Internet.

There are many ways to build high-speed Internet networks out to the country. And unless corporate generosity takes an unprecedented turn for the better, it will always be consumers who pick up the tab. Either we’ll pay higher fees to network owners. Or we’ll pay high costs to content and service providers on the network. Or we’ll pay higher taxes to subsidize tax incentives and subsidies to build infrastructure. No one can seriously dispute this truth. Since consumers are paying one way or another, why on Earth would we sacrifice the free and open Internet to boot?

WRT to other countries like Japan and S. Korea that are currently whupping our butts in broadband. They did not eleiminate net neutrality. Just the opposite. They went even further. They mandated that their monopoly telco networks open their networks to competitors.

We used to do that. It was called "open access." We repealed that rule, so broadband ISP competition is dying and reducing down to the cable/telco duopoly.

In Europe, countries are adopting the rules we *used to have*, and are pulling ahead of us. France, the Neatherlands, Latvia, Estonia. In the last five years, these countries adopted the rules we had in the late 1990s that made us #1. Now they are getting high speed fiber cheap while we beg the cable cos and telcos for crumbs.

I have been waiting impatiently for more of an opportunity to wade in on this issue. I live in TN the home of Bill Frist, leader of the pillage of anything that smacks of individual control. My local newspapers are very ideological and the only way I can find out local, or important news and happenings is through the internet. I don't shop at Wal Mart and I don't want to "shop" on the internet for prepackaged information.
The telephone and cable companies got all the tax breaks and price increases in the 1990's and did NOTHING for the consumer! Now they want more breaks to deliver what WE have ALREADY PAID FOR in the way of infrastructure. The fast lane and slow lane analogy is absolutely on target. Just like on our highways, the government does not regulate what is in the semi trucks or the cars, it should not now allow AOL, Verizon, the Bells and other cable and telephone companiew to tell me which truck I can or cannot get my groceries from.

Mick McCurry comments:

To Mr. White: Many say that the reason we see other countries ahead of us in broadband deployment is that they are )1 free of the regulatory environment that inhibits investment in the U.S, telco infrastructure or 2) legacies of government owned public monopolies. I am interested in what advocates of net neutrality suggest is the answer.

But according to the program the telecoms should have invested in building out better fiber networks long ago, and they did not do it? Now they want to be paid again for something they should have already done.

The bottom line for me is that I started two companies based on the ability and atmosphere of non-competition. I would do anything to prevent the permanent loss of neutrality on the net. I wish I could do more.

If the cable companies and telecoms are so sure that they would not discriminate, let them include it in the new legislation, why the big fight to keep out.

I am against "ditching" network neutrality.

I feel that "big media" companies are getting MUCH, MUCH TOO BIG for their britches, and SHOULD be broken up (just like "Ma Bell" was back in 1984)!

If you need to find out who in Congress supports and opposes net neutrality, go to http://www.savetheinternet.com . They have a page giving you the 411 on the Senators & Congress peoples' stand on net neutrality.

I have been waiting impatiently for more of an opportunity to wade in on this issue. I live in TN the home of Bill Frist, leader of the pillage of anything that smacks of individual control. My local newspapers are very ideological and the only way I can find out local, or important news and happenings is through the internet. I don't shop at Wal Mart and I don't want to "shop" on the internet for prepackaged information.
The telephone and cable companies got all the tax breaks and price increases in the 1990's and did NOTHING for the consumer! Now they want more breaks to deliver what WE have ALREADY PAID FOR in the way of infrastructure. The fast lane and slow lane analogy is absolutely on target. Just like on our highways, the government does not regulate what is in the semi trucks or the cars, it should not now allow AOL, Verizon, the Bells and other cable and telephone companiew to tell me which truck I can or cannot get my groceries from.

You guys have to get that on Channel 2, 4, etc. A bunch of people I talked to said they would not watch it just because of the channel. They may not be the smartest people, but it is those people we must get the word out to.

While savetheinternet.com has done lots of work with their grassroots efforts, those "grassroots" efforts exist in DC. THANK YOU MOVEON. The reality is -- no one actually has any idea what they're talking about (at least thats what it seems like to me). I've been watching this debate (sort of - when i have i time)...I actually do care. Nothing makes any sense. Do these save the internet people really want the government to regulate the internet? really? is that a good idea?

Talking about how Google and other such companies have found a "loophole" in net neutrality is COMPLETE BS. Why? If I go out and spend more on gas then I GET CHARGED. If they are USING so much then CHARGE them more. It's painfully simple. If you set up a pricing system that doesn't support your industry, then YOU shot YOURSELF in your own foot.

And in terms of the no broadband boogie-man: if one company won't do it, then someone will. God forbid the community do it or GASP the local government!

McCurry sounds like he's trying to create a new kind of class warefare with Google and Yahoo as the new undeserving rich.
I see Comcast raising prices for my cable and internet, forcing me to pay for many channels I don't want, all for the privilege of tuning into a shrinking variety of programs. The city of Braintree MA offers cable and internet services through their city owned public utility company and it is far superior in price and content to that of the major comercial carriers in the area. Compitition works. If this program was correct, we've already paid for the fiber optic system once and we shouldn't believe the major carriers that if we pay for it again we'll get what we pay for.

I have been waiting impatiently for more of an opportunity to wade in on this issue. I live in TN the home of Bill Frist, leader of the pillage of anything that smacks of individual control. My local newspapers are very ideological and the only way I can find out local, or important news and happenings is through the internet. I don't shop at Wal Mart and I don't want to "shop" on the internet for prepackaged information.
The telephone and cable companies got all the tax breaks and price increases in the 1990's and did NOTHING for the consumer! Now they want more breaks to deliver what WE have ALREADY PAID FOR in the way of infrastructure. The fast lane and slow lane analogy is absolutely on target. Just like on our highways, the government does not regulate what is in the semi trucks or the cars, it should not now allow AOL, Verizon, the Bells and other cable and telephone companiew to tell me which truck I can or cannot get my groceries from.

Thank you, Bill Moyers and PBS for being the ONLY source of dissemination on this crisis of media consolidation and impending loss of internet neutrality. Like others who feel helpless to do anything when corporations own and run Congress and FCC, the only thing I can do is teach and inform college students who don't seek out this otherwise hard-to find information.

Yet I still don't understand why our "anti-trust laws" aren't breaking up corporate monolopies (e.g., Microsoft, AT&T, Clear Channel, Cox, Comcast, etc.). Is it the same corporate-owned courts that are allowing "illegal" monopolies to exist and proliferate? Please run a program on this topic some time soon as well. Thanks again.

If you're concerned, and want to stay informed about telco finagling, FCC action and what the Lame Duck Congress might do, SaveTheInternet.com has a great daily email summary of this news called Media Reform Daily. It is a primary source of network news for me!

I have been waiting impatiently for more of an opportunity to wade in on this issue. I live in TN the home of Bill Frist, leader of the pillage of anything that smacks of individual control. My local newspapers are very ideological and the only way I can find out local, or important news and happenings is through the internet. I don't shop at Wal Mart and I don't want to "shop" on the internet for prepackaged information.
The telephone and cable companies got all the tax breaks and price increases in the 1990's and did NOTHING for the consumer! Now they want more breaks to deliver what WE have ALREADY PAID FOR in the way of infrastructure. The fast lane and slow lane analogy is absolutely on target. Just like on our highways, the government does not regulate what is in the semi trucks or the cars, it should not now allow AOL, Verizon, the Bells and other cable and telephone companiew to tell me which truck I can or cannot get my groceries from.

As mentioned in the program, Sen. Ted Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and the principal author of the Senate telecommunicatiions bill that lacks Net Neutrality protections, has stated that he will get this telecom bill passed in Lame Duck session, which will likely begin around Novemer 13. It is EXTREMELY important to contact your U.S. Senators to inform them that you OPPOSE passage of this telecom bill (formerly S.2686, currently designated as H.R.5252, since it is being offered as an amendment to the House telecom bill), if you agree that Net Neutrality is in the country's best interests.

The website
www.savetheinternet.com is a source of excellent information.

Best regards,
Chuck Peña
Executive Director
Fairfax Public Access
Fairfax, VA 22031
cpena@fcac.org
www.fcac.org

All right, I watched the show. All I got is that because the previous regulation-heavy telecom market in the 80s and 90s didn't get it done, now we should be afraid that... AT&T is going to make me read FoxNews.com instead of Daily Kos! I should be so lucky! And what the hell, I can still rewind and fast-forward my TV now.

Basically this whole program falls apart the way most Moyers consumer reports episodes do. If you don't take it as a given that the telcos are trying to screw you. I repeat: I can re-wind and fast-forward (up to a point) live programming. I'm supposed to be worried that in a few years I can get that on my laptop?

Enjoyed the program. However, how do you protect against what is unwanted?

Someone recently used my email address to send "raunchy, dirty" emails to people whom I don't know. I've got firewalls and various other protections on my computer, yet some unknown person was able to access my info.

The phone company fiber optics system, will just help these nusances to be able to bother me and others faster!

Barbara Grosswald
Kings Park, NY

The ablility to share ideas and data Globably must be preserved. I don't think I could tolerate a provider sying to me (via denial of I.P. routing) that www.bbc.co.uk for example was inaporiate material for us in the U.S. This is what the bill will ultimantly give them the power to do. If they dissagree with content (no matter what it is) they WILL BLOCK ACCESS. This is not what I believe the spirit behind the Constitution had in mind. Without the proper language reguarding policy and ethics this bill must be blocked.

From the beginning, Mr. McCurry and other phone company lobbyists have spun Net Neutrality as a "solution in search of a problem." It makes for a pithy sound byte. Unfortunately, the reality is far more disconcerting. Top executives at the nation's largest phone and cable companies have repeatedly stated their intention to impose new tolls on the Internet -- to create a non-neutral network that would extend special favors to the companies that strike deals with them and discriminate against the rest of us who don't.

They're on the record. What executives at AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Comcast want to do IS a problem. And it's in desperate need of a solution. That solution is the meaningful and enforceable Net Neutrality.

The fight to preserve Net Neutrality has brought together many disparate groups to oppose the power grab by phone and cable companies. More than a thousand consumer and Internet rights groups, public advocacy organizations, trade groups, faith-based and political organizations, librarians, educators and small businesses have come to the defense of Net Neutrality. More than a million Americans have written Congress asking for it. Net users have used new online tools in the blogosphere, and on YouTube, MySpace, and Facebook to defend the Internet against the very real problems posed by these executives

We didn't join together to spread conspiracy theories. We're responding to explicit threats from some of the most powerful corporate executives in the world. What's caught McCurry and his allies in the phone industry off guard is the force of this public response. Until now, media legislation had been written behind closed doors with no public input. Not anymore.

Our success thus far reflects the Internet’s new power to mobilize millions of people as a democratizing force. That’s why the public’s active involvement is so important. The more an organized public is engaged in the policy-making process, the more likely the Internet that Congress shapes will serve the people, not just powerful corporations.

When McCurry says that there's no threat, and that consumers "enjoy vast legal protections to access the content of their choice," he ignores the new threats to Internet that his employers have themselves outlined.

But if these companies are honestly determined not to defy the principles of Net Neutrality, why are they spending tens of millions of dollars to kill all efforts to protect this fundamental consumer protection?

If you believe the phone companies are primarily out to help consumers—I’ve got an iceberg in Greenland I’d like to sell you.

It is difficult to speak truth to power when the microphone is owned by others. I hope this excellent show has awakened many more oeople to the issues of control and arrogance.

Net Neutrality is an absolute
must and should be defended by government and private citizens alike. Bravo for providing an enlightening and
totally essential program on this subject.

now is the time for all good people to defend our freedoms !!! by joining groups like moveon.org christian coalition womens league of voters and yes make apest of yourself email and call your congress man and senator every day make them know you will not be flimflamed and conned the site lmv.org of the league of women voters has all yor federal people on it use it asap since Ben Franklin did state That those whom will give up essential libertys for temporary SECURITY DESERVE NIETHER ONE !! and lets not have a Big Brother like ion 1984 who tells us what to watch what to believe and whom to believe this is not a Aristocracy where only rich persons can express their VIEWS !!

At the time of SBC's purchase of AT&T in 2005, SBC provided local telephone service in 13 states (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, Wisconsin), provided long distance service to 10 million customers and owned 60% of mobile phone provider Cingular Wireless, the largest mobile phone service provider in the United States. BellSouth, in a joint venture with AT&T Inc., owns the remaining 40% of Cingular Wireless. The company was also an Internet Service Provider and the largest DSL provider in the US, with more than 5.1 million DSL subscribers as of late 2005. Now add BelSouth land-line service to the mix.

When is someone going to expose what I see at nearly every session on the House floor. With few exceptions the Republicans present a bill under a closed rule (no ammendments allowed). The Democrats get to see it roughly an hour before the house votes on it. With no ammendments allowed the best they can do is complain about it - to no avail.

Great show. Being rural, I agree 100%. All we can get out here via AM is Clear Channel. When certain ranting talk show hosts come on, I switch and switch and switch channels, and don't miss a word of his rant!

I also live in tornado alley. When we had a local station, we could tune our radios to the local station and hear almost instantaneous reports -- no more. All of our stations are canned out of some distant city -- probably Chicago!

My worry is the spin that some put on words. I worry that I will tell my congressperson to vote on the wrong bill because lobbiests know how to word a request that makes me think I am voting for neutral internet when maybe I'm not. I think we need a code word to KNOW which is for the people and which is for monopolies.

Does anyone know what happened in LOST tonight?

Ethan Cruze: AOL says "Oops! The web page you are looking for could not be found. " Please check and clarify. Thanks.

I'm someone who recalls the "big chill" that came over TV during the Reagan era, from the standpoint of having delivered two on-air editorial replies on CBS-TV-2 New York City, during my grad school years in the late 70s. As infrequent as these opportunities for ordinary citizens to talk back had been, at least such outlets once existed. Then Reagan's FCC "reformed" media by doing away with decades-old concepts of the equal time rule both in campaigns and for controversial messages, and the whole concept of editorial reply. The result has been a new "iron curtain" drawn against any grass-roots voices on TV, UNLESS of course their managers, the monopoly gate-keepers of their broadcast frequencies, decide they like the message you have to delivery.
The result has also been a general dumbing down of public understanding about the roots of broadcast regulation in the 1930s, and the fundamental concept that the airwaves ARE INDEED, public property.
So long as the average citizen - even well-educated, white-collar professionals, I've found -have little idea that broadcast frequencies are by their nature, beyond private ownership, then citizens continue to be duped into believing that the "unfettered right of the broadcaster to say what HE wants," is somehow, an issue of "First Amendment FREE SPEECH!" Lost is the understanding that a broadcast license granted by the FCC is a public trust, that was MEANT to come with heavy obligations to serve the public interest. Instead, today, we see the travesty of Clear Channel taking control of 1000's of FCC licenses, not only for their profit, but in service to their particular political agenda.
It seems clear to me that -had broadcast technology existed during the founding of America - the control of media would have been treated as another branch of government, with the power to control access to it distributed as widely as the elective franchise, and with any for-profit commercial exploitation of it treated as an occasion to charge a reasonable fee for usage by these commercial interests. Instead, today broadcasters pay NOTHING for the fair value of the licenses given them by the FCC, but reap billions in advertising revenue from this public resource. The greatest atrocity is that the FCC licensees have arrogated to themselves the right to charge candidates for public office billions each year, for the "privilege" of participating in election-year debates by those who would serve as representatives of the very government ... that just gave away these airwaves to the broadcast campaign profiteers ... FOR FREE!
The lesson here is not only that we must re-take public interest control of BROADCAST media from the handful of profit-making conglomerates that now control so much of this resource, but also that we must not allow the common carrier principle that once ruled broadcasting, to slowly drain away from the INTERNET, as it has been leeched out of FCC policy since the FDR era!We must think long term, and we must think first and foremost about what is in the best interest of our children and grandchildren, to re-establish and preserve a vibrant, functioning and sustainable democracy!

The program made clear that, in fact, the telecom industry already HAS charged CONSUMERS for the construction of the increased bandwidth Mr. McCurry discusses without building the infrastructure. Companies that Mr. McCurry represents are using the courts to prevent public utilities from building better infrastructure themselves.

We are at a unique point in human history where one medium- the internet- is critical both to the development of our economy and our democracy. It is imperative that we make net neutrality law in order to protect both.

For those who are wondering what they can do, go to www.savetheinternet.com to learn more. Contacting your senators about the issue is vital.

RE: MM at 10:46: Not true. All leaders (except Switz) have competitive markets, with open access. Gov't incentives for deployment in rural areas. But the main commonality is competition created by policy.

Notice that tied to the obvious issue of who gets to make profit where, there is a controversy over who owns knowledge. In the 1960s and 1970s, knowledge is understood to be something proprietary and saleable (consider among others, Lyotard in Post-Modern Condition). Clearly, that is not the case anymore (when did you last pay to acquire new knowledge -- e. g., a Google search?). Boomers -- the folks running the country today, the Clintons, Bush and so on -- believe that in their deepest uncriticized thinking. Most of the GenXers do, too (certainly the forty-somethings). Controlling the 'net is a control of knowledge and its communication. The point: It's an obsolete system. I'll bet, if 'net neutrality is compromised, a whole lot of "pirate" systems will emerge, operated by folks who don't subscribe to the obsolete view of knowledge-as-proprietary. It has happened before, after all....

Isn't the hypothetical fascinating -- that's what all tv is based on....its not reality...it's what you want it to be. The internet is reality and we need to deal w/ it in a realistic way with marketplace competition. Do you really think the govt is going to have better ideas than you or I? Get over yourself...pls.

Ben Scott comments:

Let me grab onto Mike's question from earlier.

When I look at the US failure to compete seriously with the rest of the world in broadband, I see the a failure to produce policies the give us more competition between the companies that sell consumers access to the network. None of those countries have made policies that permit gatekeeping and REDUCE competition between content providers online. Scrapping Net Neutrality is a step in the wrong direction if we want to build an Internet economy that will put us back on top of the world.

fabulous fabulous show. we have THREE NPR stations in this town, and the small community radio station i volunteer as a programmer has 20 times more local info than all three put together. it's truly pathetic!

Excellent program. The Impolitic is on record in full support of net neutrality. If the telecoms intend to honor it "in prinicple" then there should be no problem with reinstating government regulations to preserve and protect neutrality. The corporations already control our access to the internets, and every other major source of information. By no means should they be allowed to potentially control internet content.

Not only must net neutrality be codified but the FCC should also overturn recent rulings on media consolation to restore diversified local control over all news media. Our democracy does indeed depend on the full unfettered public discourse that only the internets and a diversified media can provide.

One thing which is frequently lost sight of is that the telcos claims about needing the revenue from tiered pricing for deployment are a function of their own rapacity. Deregulation has provided them with a windfall of tens of billions of dollars, extracted from the public, which they promised to use to fund fibre deployment and then pocketed as profits. A just policy would insist that the telcos deploy highspeed fibre as a condition of even permitting consideration of modifying the net neutrality rules. A government the regulatory agencies and legislature of which had not been captured by these special interests would insist on deployment before entertaining proposed rules changes. The telcos have already been paid to deployment the necessary infrastructure. Let them cough up the money and deploy. Then we can see if there's any need to modify the rules,

please send information when this legislation comes up in front of congress so that I let my congress representives how this family feels. The internet can NOT be allowed to be taken over by big business!!!!

If net neutrality is going to be supported by peter pan, tron guy and the freaky sweater lady, then count me out. i'd rather have at&t, and verizon control my 'freedom'.

i am the internet, you are the internet....

When the telecos claim that there is no need for regulation because nothing bad has yet happened, that is like a mentally ill patient going off of his medicine because he is feeling bette