Last December, the FCC implemented rules that limited the establishment a “fast-lane” by internet service provides available to those with the highest bid. Under the rules laid out in December by the FCC, telecommunications companies cannot discriminate in what internet content they allow their customers to access. Net neutrality advocates have said that without a framework, large businesses could pay large telecommunications companies to direct internet traffic to their businesses without the consumer knowing that other websites had been skipped over, a practice known as paid prioritization.

That rule takes effect on Nov. 20, but House and Senate Republicans have pushed to have that rule withdrawn through legislative means. The House already passed the bill, and Senate Republicans are pushing a similar one as the deadline approaches. They are using a procedural gimmick in the Senate to force a floor vote without the option of a filibuster.

Republicans have put the issue into a resolution that simply reads that the FCC rule “shall have no force or effect.”

On Tuesday, Sen. Franken penned an column explaining what he feels will be the result if Senate Republicans are successful.

“While millions of Americans have become familiar with the concept of net neutrality, it’s important that we’re all on the same page,” Franken wrote. “Net neutrality isn’t a government takeover of the Internet, as many of my Republican colleagues have alleged. It isn’t even a change from what we have now. Net neutrality has been in place since the very beginning of the Internet.”

He added, “But many Republicans want to change that so that the large corporations they represent can increase their profit margins at the expense of small businesses and consumers.”

Franken has been a champion of net neutrality since being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2008.

But he also felt the net neutrality rules created by the FCC weren’t strong enough.

“The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications and devices,” Franken said in December. “Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.”

The Obama administration pushed back on Tuesday as well, indicating to Senate Republicans that a veto any bill that weakened net neutrality would be likely.

“The Administration strongly opposes Senate passage of S.J. Res. 6, which would undermine a fundamental part of the Nation’s Open Internet and innovation strategy—an enforceable, effective but flexible policy for keeping the Internet free and open. Today more than ever, the open Internet is essential to job creation, economic growth, and global competitiveness,” the White House said on Tuesday. “If the President is presented with S.J. Res. 6, which would not safeguard the free and open Internet, his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the Resolution.”

Paradoxically, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, the author of the rules repeal, says her bill would encourage an open and free internet.

“The Internet and technology have produced more jobs in this country than just about any other sector. It has been the cradle of innovation, it does not have a problem, and it does not need fixing,” Hutchison said in a statement on Tuesday. “More regulation of the Internet is going to stop the investments, it’s going to stop the creativity — and put our businesses and our providers at a competitive disadvantage with Europeans and others that have kept their Internet free of over-regulation.”

No one loved the internet rules written by the Federal Communications Commission last year that sought to safeguard the free-flowing egalitarian quality of the internet, where communication-industry giants don’t get to decide which information streams to users and at what speed.

One side thought the rules were overreaching socialism, and the other thought they were riven with the kind of loopholes corporate interests could wiggle through when it came time to assert control. This spring, Republicans in the House opposed to the rules voted to strip the FCC of the cash it would need to enforce them.

On Wednesday, a small band of senators, including Minnesota’s Al Franken, sent a letter to Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) and Ranking Member Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) objecting to the House action and asking the committee to strip out the budget amendment that would hold back the FCC funds.

“The … network neutrality rules are built on principles everyone should support – promoting transparency of broadband service operations; preventing blocking of legal content and websites; and prohibiting discrimination of individuals, applications, and other websites,” the senators wrote. “Some members of Congress have decided that they know better what is good for the Internet than the people who use, fund, and work on it. We side with the agency of expertise and supporters of the rule and urge you to reject any proposals that will prevent the FCC from implementing or enforcing its net neutrality rules.”

Joel Kelsey, a spokesman for Free Press, a media watchdog group that supports net neutrality, decried the “defunding” budget amendment strategy and applauded the group of senators who opposed it.

“This amendment is a poorly disguised play to hijack the budget process in order to prolong a political grudge against the FCC. We hope the Appropriations Committee heeds the advice of the senators on this letter and leaves this amendment where it belongs – on the cutting room floor.”

The letter:

June 29, 2011

Dear Chairman Inouye and Ranking Member Cochran:

The House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government Subcommittee has included language in its funding bill for 2012 barring the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from using any funds to put into effect the Open Internet rules it approved last year. We write to you to renew our objection as a matter of both policy and process to any similar effort in the Senate.

Congress created the FCC in 1934 and reaffirmed in 1996 that the agency’s mandate is to provide all Americans with fair and equitable access to communications over wire and airwaves.

Consistent with those values and that mandate, the FCC approved an order to establish network neutrality ground rules for our nation’s broadband infrastructure. Those rules, which are in the public interest, establish guidelines for how telephone and cable companies can treat information that travels over their wires and connects Americans to the Internet and each other.

The final network neutrality rules are built on principles everyone should support – promoting transparency of broadband service operations; preventing blocking of legal content and websites; and prohibiting discrimination of individuals, applications, and other websites. In the wake of the order, a host of companies, venture capitalists, and hundreds of thousands of users of the Internet expressed their approval. Opponents of the rule predicted that we would see a decline in investment in broadband infrastructure because of the agency’s defense of the open Internet. In the intervening months, investment in infrastructure has continued to grow and innovative firms are developing and providing services over the Internet free from discrimination. The predictions of opponents have fallen flat.

Some members of Congress have decided that they know better what is good for the Internet than the people who use, fund, and work on it. We side with the agency of expertise and supporters of the rule and urge you to reject any proposals that will prevent the FCC from implementing or enforcing its net neutrality rules.

Sincerely,

John Kerry
Jay Rockefeller
Al Franken
Maria Cantwell
Tom Udall
Richard Blumenthal
Mark Udall
Ron Wyden
Bernard Sanders
Mark Begich

Although it seems to be at a crucial stage as more and more media moves to the web and as broadband access expands to the last corners of the country, the battle over net neutrality and how it will be enforced is sure to continue for years.

Sen. Al Franken headed to Austin, Texas, on Monday to speak about net neutrality at the South by Southwest (SXSW) festival, one of the largest film, music and interactive gatherings. In his speech, Franken said that net neutrality is important for many of the artists who showcase their talents at SXSW and that maintaining the current structure of the internet will help keep it “weird” — a reference to the festival host city’s informal slogan.

Franken called the internet “the ultimate self-distribution channel; the best part is that no one has to sell out unless they want to.”

The Minnesota Democrat warned that if the structure of the internet were to change, independent artists would have a hard time getting heard.

“I came here today to warn you that the party may almost be over,” he said. “They are coming after the internet hoping to destroy the very thing that makes it such an important tool for indie artists and entrepreneurs: its freedom and openness.”

He explained what the term means. “Net neutrality means that content… moves over the internet freely and moves at the same speed no matter what it is or who owns it,” he said. “For instance, an email from President Obama and an email from your tea party uncle come in at the same speed.”

He added that opponents of net neutrality often say that proponents want to change the internet.

“We have net neutrality right now and we don’t want to lose it. It’s not about changing the internet at all,” he said.

He said the problem exists when corporations decide to allow certain content to be transmitted at one speed and other content at other speeds.

“Big corporations are not inherently evil, but they have a legal obligation to make as much money as they can,” he said. “Paid prioritization would make these corporations gatekeepers to decide which content goes in the high speed lane and which gets stuck in traffic depending on who paid.”

He added that lobbyists are derailing efforts to prevent paid prioritization. “Every policymaker in Washington is hearing much more from the anti-net neutrality side than the side without lobbyists,” he said. “But everyone has more to fear from these big corporations than from us. It would benefit no one but them.”

“Let’s not sell out,” he concluded. “Let’s not let the government sell us out. Let’s fight for net neutrality. Let’s keep Austin weird. Let’s keep the internet weird. Let’s keep the internet free.”

Minneapolis native Leif Utne of The UpTake spoke with Sen. Franken before the speech.  “To me this is the First Amendment issue of our time,” he said. “The right seems to want to say that this is taking over the internet, but it’s not; it’s about keeping the internet the way it is.”

He provided an example, “You get The UpTake as fast as Fox News — and that’s the way it should be.”

The Federal Communications Commission passed a set of rules Tuesday “to preserve basic Internet values,” but advocates of net neutrality say the new rules do not go far enough. Sen. Al Franken called the measures “simply inadequate,” while Republicans have vowed to push to repeal the new framework.

Under the new rules, telecommunications companies cannot discriminate in what internet content they allow to their customers to access. Net neutrality advocates have said that without a framework, large businesses could pay large telecommunications companies to direct internet traffic to their businesses without the consumer knowing that other websites had been skipped over, a practice known as paid prioritization.

Under the rules, telecoms can only manage their data in that manner if there is network congestion or spam, and they must disclose their policies should they plan to manage the data.

“The FCC’s action today is simply inadequate to protect consumers or preserve the free and open Internet,” Sen. Franken said in a statement following the FCC vote. “I am particularly disappointed to learn that the order will not specifically ban paid prioritization, allowing big companies to pay for a fast lane on the Internet and abandoning the foundation of net neutrality. The rule also contains almost no protections for mobile broadband service, remaining silent on the blocking of content, applications, and devices. Wireless technology is the future of the Internet, and for many rural Minnesotans, it’s often the only choice for broadband.”

Franken did give the commission some credit, however. “I’m particularly encouraged by the inclusion of language cautioning that the FCC’s silence on certain kinds of discriminatory behavior by wireless carriers doesn’t tacitly condone it. While this is far from adequate, it stops us from taking a step backward.”

Hours after the vote, Republicans in Congress vowed to repeal the new FCC framework saying it could hurt profits for telecoms.

Al Franken. MnIndy file photo

Sen. Al Franken spoke out on net neutrality ahead of a Minnesota visit by officials from the Federal Communications Commission to discuss the same issue. The FCC will hold a hearing at South High School in Minneapolis at 6 pm tonight. Franken said on Tuesday that if telecoms have their way, consumers will end up paying much more and have less open access to the internet.

“Net neutrality means everything travels at the same speed,” said Franken. He said that telecoms want consumers to “pay for the pipes.”

“The internet service providers want to pay for faster, premium access to people who will pay for it,” he said. “That means someone will get FOX before they will get you,” he told Access to Democracy host Alan Miller.

“Ultimately what I’m afraid of,” said Franken, “is that the internet service providers will be made up of about five companies.”

Here’s video of Franken’s remarks courtesy of TheUptake:

Bachmann dismissed claims by former President Bill Clinton, Rep. Betty McCollum and others that Republican and Tea Party rhetoric could incite violence. She said that when Democrats feel attacked, they cry “violence.”

“Well, one word that we’ve heard a lot just in this last week is the word “violence.” And that when people on the right are disagreeing with the Obama administration that we’re fomenting violence. Well, I think violence is when the Democrat-controlled base, whether it’s President Obama, Harry Reid or Speaker Pelosi — when they feel like their political position of power is being attacked, that’s what they equate violence with.”

And as CityPages pointed out, Bachmann seems to misunderstand the concept of net neutrality, calling it “censorship.”

“So whether they’re attacking conservative talk radio, or conservative TV or whether it’s Internet sites, I mean, let’s face it, what’s the Obama administration doing? They’re advocating net neutrality which is essentially censorship of the Internet. This is the Obama administration advocating censorship of the Internet. Why? They want to silence the voices that are opposing them. Despite the fact that they continue to have much of the mainstream media still providing cover for all of these dramatic efforts that the Obama administration is taking. So they’re very specifically and pointedly going after voices that they see are effectively telling the truth about what the Obama administration is trying to do.”

The altweekly notes that Obama has been pretty clear on net neutrality: “We’ve got to keep the Internet open,” he said on the issue in February.

Here’s video of Bachmann’s appearance on Hannity on Monday:

Franken, Bachmann, Walz and Ellison "Bobble Reps"

Asked at Saturday’s Netroots Minnesota conference what blogs he follows, Rep. Tim Walz pulled out his iPhone and rattled off a few sites: Talking Points Memo, Bluestem Prairie, MN Publius and others. Then he showed off his favorite iPhone app — a new one that features his likeness and that of every other member of the House and Senate as shakeable cartoon bobbleheads.

The 99-cent “Bobble Rep” app helps users find out who represents them in Congress, either through a direct search or by using the iPhone’s GPS locator. The caricatures — heads for each of 540 legislators put on one of 12 bodies — were drawn by MAD Magazine artist Tom Richmond to be fun and nonpartisan. But Apple didn’t see it that way: it rejected the application claiming “it ridicules public figures.”

Richmond wrote:

This is truly ridiculous. These caricatures aren’t mean or very exaggerated. They are simple, fun cartoon likenesses of the politicians and the purpose of the app is an informational database. There is no editorial commentary involved at all.

Indeed, related projects, while likewise tame, could probably be construed as far more “offensive,” to use Apple’s word. Sen. Franken, for instance, was rendered as a 3D vampire bobblehead, “The Count,” (along with Norm Coleman) by the St. Paul Saints baseball team in March. And earlier this month, Franken and Coleman were given the MAD Magazine treatment in a spoof ad for “Democra-cialis, ” a cure for the kind of “electile dysfunction” that plagued their 2008 Senate battle, in MAD’s list of “dumbest people, events and things” of 2009.

But last Monday, Apple reversed its decision, green-lighting the app that made its way to Walz’s cellphone.

Walz’s wielded smartphone could’ve been a good prop for another question he answered — about net neutrality. He said he’s “absolutely convinced that we must keep net neutrality,” and thanks to his resolve, “AT&T doesn’t even come to my office anymore” to lobby against it, he added. He said he’s surprised that conservatives aren’t more concerned about the freedom issues surrounding the possibility of corporations controlling what internet users can and can’t access.

“If you want to wave the patriot banner,” he said, “wave it on net neutrality.”

Here’s how each of Minnesota’s Bobble Reps look:

Photo: Alper Bozkurt, Boyce Thompson Institute

Gov. Tim Pawlenty got it wrong last week when he talked about Minnesota’s U.S. Senate recount, but the winner of that recount got it right when talking yesterday on another topic: cyborg bugs. Franken made this statement during a speech in Washington, D.C.:

Several years ago — I can’t remember exactly when, I think it was the mid- to late-’90s, I went and gave a speech to the folks at DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. And I remember asking what cool things they were working on. And later a guy came up to me and took me aside and told me he was working on an unmanned aerial vehicle the size of an insect. I was really excited about that.

Evidently that hasn’t happened. They didn’t make the bug-sized unmanned aerial vehicle work.

But they did create the ARPA-net 40 years ago. And the ARPA-net grew into the internet, which is almost as cool as a bug-sized unmanned aerial vehicle with a camera and a Hellfire missile on it.

Hmm … he “can’t remember exactly when”? Even in his prepared remarks (“pretty sure it didn’t happen”) Franken sounded iffy on this fly thing, like he was inviting a fact check.

Turns out he’s right: DARPA’s hybrid insect microelectromechanical systems (HI-MEMS) program has not so far achieved its dream:

To be considered successful, the final HI-MEMS cybernetic bug must fly 100 meters from a starting point and then be steered into a controlled landing within 5 meters of a specified end point. On landing, the insect must stay in place.

Jeff Goldblum as "The Fly"

But military research sometimes has beneficial civilian side-effects (for example, DARPA’s role in pioneering the internet — now threatened, Franken says, unless Congress enacts net neutrality legislation).

Cyborg bugs may not yet be delivering tiny payloads to enemy targets, but in the course of trying scientists have developed nifty little radios you could implant in a moth.

One thing holding back full implementation: Moths don’t live long enough to make it worth it.

Here’s video of Franken, with his insightful insect comment at the 3:23 mark:

And, without comment, President Obama:

In 2006, for example, the company donated $200,000 to the International Republican Institute, a Washington organization where McCain served as chairman of the board. This was the year that, not coincidentally, McCain was also chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the group responsible for overseeing the telecom industry.

Yet AT&T has wormed its way into policy and campaign issues beyond just giving millions in coercive, soft-money donations to McCain’s campaign: A total of 12 of McCain’s campaign advisers and/or staff are either registered as lobbyists for or served as an executive of AT&T. His chief adviser, Charlie Black, is the former chairman of lobbying firm BKSH & Associates, which has represented AT&T for the last decade.

In the case of McCain, such close ties have paid off for the telecom giant: As a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee (he twice served as chairman), McCain voted to allow the AT&T merger in 2005, when SBC Communications bought AT&T for $16 billion. And he introduced a measure that would limit the Federal Communications Commission authority to review telecom takeovers and monopolies. As chairman of the committee, he also voted to ban state and local taxes on Internet access, a bill supported by the AT&T and the rest of the telecom industry. McCain won praise year after year from the industry for his support of bills that favored the giants but not the public at large.

It makes sense then that AT&T, the biggest telecom company in the country, will be the biggest party thrower at the RNC next week, hosting nearly 20 parties across the Twin Cities for Republican lawmakers. That’s because, with net neutrality a campaign issue, AT&T has the most to gain. McCain has vehemently opposed net neutrality, meaning that he thinks Internet Service Providers, such as AT&T, for example, can own and restrict content on the web.

To get access to such “privileged” content, users like you and me would have to pay for an expensive, multi-tiered service package. In other words, McCain wants to give his buddies at AT&T and other telecom industries major tax breaks (25 percent, according to his most recent tech plan) and the ability to censor and control content. Such a trampling of net neutrality would result in billions of dollars in profits for AT&T, which is in the wireless, internet, and satellite TV business and has more than 100 million customers. But it would mean consumers and businesses would have to pay a lot more for access, and even then companies like AT&T could block content, services, and applications.

Next week, AT&T parties will dot the Twin Cities day and night, its party goers/lawmakers lit up by the blue glow of their AT&T iPhones and telltale smiles. As the second-largest campaign contributor in the country, donating a total of $39.5 million since 1989, just ahead of the National Association of Realtors, AT&T is going all out for the shindigs, hosting one every day for various state delegates. And while it’s illegal for private companies to host a party specifically for individual lawmakers, it doesn’t stop the companies from courting them and schmoozing them. Here are just a few of the parties AT&T will be throwing for lawmakers next week:

August 31
Salute to the Screen Actors Guild at the Fine Line Music Café (10pm-2am)

September 1
AT&T reception for California delegates at Brit’s Pub (5pm-7pm)

September 2
Young Guns reception at Brit’s Pub (5pm-7pm)
African-American voter reception at Karma (7pm-10pm)

September 3
The One campaign featuring “A-list” musical guest at Epic (10pm-2am)