Quipping that "usually newspapers are big defenders of free speech, but not the Washington Post," economic reporting critic Dean Baker (Beat the Press, 8/2/09) takes down the paper's recent piece giving over "nearly 2,000 words to complain that a website had ripped off" one reporter's story.

Careful to say that "the problem was not that the website had plagiarized the piece"--indeed, the "story was credited and even linked to by the website, which was a major source of readers for the original article"--Baker tells us that the Post "is upset that the website may have made money off his work, because it sells ads based on viewership."

The Post "wants 'news organizations' to have the right to sue others that use their work without permission and profit from it"--even though, as Baker writes, "if people opt to read the piece on another website rather than the Post, then there must be some reason. Obviously they prefer something about this alternative venue":

If the protectionist measure advocated in this piece succeeded in shutting down the competition, then there would be a clear loss to readers. This loss would likely dwarf the loss to consumers that the Post routinely whines about so loudly when anyone suggests a tariff on imports or any other barrier to trade. After all, those forms of protection rarely add more than 10–15 percent to the price of a product. In this case, the Post's proposal may make the product unavailable altogether. Yet again, we see that protectionism is just fine with "free traders." The only issue is who is being protected.

Finally, let's consider what the enforcement of the Post's measure looks like. First, who is a "news organization?" Is this a title that one registers for with the government? Does the Post get the title but not its website competitors? I suppose those big bucks dinners with lobbyists and policymakers really are worth something.

As a practical matter, it would be an incredible affront to the First Amendment if the Post and other major newspapers and established news outlets were given any special ability to sue under such an act, compared to websites, or for that matter think tanks.

Going with his usual inclination to "think this one through for a moment," Baker finds the whole argument somewhat moot, considering how the paper's reporter "does not even know that he was harmed by the website piece." In fact, "it is entirely possible that more people viewed his piece on the Post's site as a result of the version appearing on the website."

Read lots of related content in the special Future of Journalism issue of FAIR's magazine Extra!: "Did Google Kill the Newspaper Star?" (7/09) by Peter Hart.

Free Press's newest release (7/31/09) touts some fresh congressional legislation that "Would Protect Net Neutrality Once and for All." According to the media reform activists, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 "would protect Network Neutrality under the Communications Act, safeguarding the future of the open Internet and protecting Internet users from discrimination online."

Policy director Ben Scott explains how

the future of the Internet as we know it depends on maintaining freedom and openness online. This crucial legislation will help to ensure that the public--not big phone and cable companies--controls the fate of the Internet.

The rules that govern the Internet must protect economic innovation, democratic participation and free speech online. If we don't make Net Neutrality the law once and for all, we could see the innovation and promise of the Internet derailed forever.

While warning that "an army of lobbyists has been unleashed by the phone and cable companies to kill Net Neutrality so they can become the Internet's gatekeepers," Scott maintains that "the momentum is shifting in the public's favor," with "popular support...growing every day"--as evidenced by the fact that "millions have already called on our lawmakers to take action."

Free Press campaign coordinator Misty Perez has sent out (7/15/09) a call to action in light of the astonishing figure that "in the first three months of 2009, the phone and cable industries spent at least $20 million to hire more than 400 lobbyists" in an effort to "push for policies that fatten phone and cable profits while leaving us with an Internet that is too expensive and too slow." Why their sense of urgency?:

Right now, the FCC is crafting a national broadband plan that could fix our national broadband problem. FCC Commissioner Michael Copps called this plan "the most formative--indeed, transformative--proceeding ever in the Commission's history."

We desperately need it. Without such a plan, America has dropped to 22nd place in the world in broadband penetration, with approximately 40 percent of the country still not connected to high-speed Internet services.

If the lobbyists have their way, America will continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the world.

But if we get our way, we can reinvigorate the economy, open up public participation in government, empower a new generation of journalists, and give everyone the opportunity to prosper in the 21st century.

Perez links to a "pretty stunning" online "graphic to see how many phone and cable lobbyists there really are in Washington--and how much is being spent"--and asks that we "tell the FCC to support media that's participatory, open and democratic--and not to hand the keys to the Internet to the old guard."

Bringing us the news that "the North Carolina legislature just sent a bill to study committee (a.k.a shelved it at least until next year) that would have crippled municipal broadband projects in the state," AlterNet's Tana Ganeva (5/6/09) tells "why that's a really, really good (albeit temporary) thing":

According to a recent study, America ranks 15th in the world in broadband access. This is partly because we have a very large population spread over a very large amount of space. But it is also because private companies don't care about poor people and refuse to build broadband infrastructure in rural areas and many low-income city neighborhoods.

This is where municipal broadband plans come in. Local governments set up networks providing fast Internet access to underserved or totally ignored areas, for free or at significantly lower prices than would private providers.

Which sounds great--to everyone except giant telecommunications companies "distressed by the prospect of actual competition in an otherwise monopolized industry." Their general response "is to lobby for deeply unpopular legislation that would effectively kill local government broadband projects"--as has been their strategy for quite some time; see the FAIR magazine Extra!: "Strings Attached: Telecom Industry's Spin Machine Casts Net Over Community Broadband" (9-10/05) by Michelle Chen.

Free Press is welcoming (4/28/09) as "a long overdue step in the right direction" the news that "Cablevision announced plans to offer download speeds of 101Mbps and upload speeds of 15Mbps" without charging "usage caps or overage fees" to users. Research director S. Derek Turner explains that the plan

does, however, beg the question why Cablevision can offer fast access with reportedly no caps or overage fees, when others claim such a plan would cause the sky to fall and an exaflood to break the Internet. We hope this new announcement will put an end to the bandwidth bogeyman.

We also encourage companies like Cablevision to think about the other part of the value equation--price. These days, lower prices are just as important as faster speeds.

For some of the history feeding Turner's healthy skepticism about giant media corporations' claims regarding the Internet, read the fair magazine Extra!: "Deregulation's History of Empty Promises: Net Neutrality and the Supermedia Monopolies" (3-4/07) by Jeff Chester.

Free Press Campaign Director Tim Karr (SaveTheInternet.com, 4/16/09) is celebrating Time Warner Cable having "shelved its plan to impose excessive Internet fees against those who use the Web for more than email and basic surfing." Karr details how

Time Warner Cable had been testing new Internet use penalties on people in Beaumont, Texas, and planned later this year to launch trials in Rochester, N.Y.; Austin and San Antonio, Texas; and Greensboro, N.C. If successful, Time Warner Cable execs planned to impose this cost structure upon the company’s 8.4 million broadband subscribers in 32 states....

The scheme would have forced consumers to pay up to $150 a month for full access to the Internet--an inflated pay-per-byte rate that the company hoped would dampen popular enthusiasm for online video watching, and stem the migration of viewers from cable television to online video sites like Hulu.com.

But good news came when "the company buckled under a withering barrage of negative press and consumer complaints" from Net Neutrality advocates: "Free Press activists sent more than 16,000 letters urging Congress to investigate Time Warner Cable. One grassroots group, StoptheCap.com, served as a clearing house for outraged customers."

The media activist group Free Press has a new release (3/19/09) warning of the latest threat to free speech online: "a technology known as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) that offers Internet service providers unprecedented control over Internet content." DPI, says Free Press, "could spell disaster for the free market online," AKA Net Neutrality. According to Free Press, DPI is designed to "monitor, control and ultimately charge subscribers for every use of an Internet connection," because it "'enables service providers to project potential revenues and profits from setting up a tiered service infrastructure' and allows providers to 'reduce the performance of applications with negative influence on revenues.'" All of which adds up to "a major threat to the open Internet":

DPI technology has played a central role in recent controversies surrounding Net Neutrality and online privacy. When Comcast, the nation's largest cable company, was caught secretly using DPI to block peer-to-peer applications, it was met with overwhelming public opposition and ultimately ordered by the Federal Communications Commission to stop the practice. And after advertising startup NebuAd, in partnership with several ISPs, used DPI to secretly monitor users' Internet traffic and insert unwanted advertising, the company was investigated by Congress, dropped by its ISP partners and forced to abandon the business model.

Cox Communications is the latest ISP to receive public scrutiny for its use of DPI technology. The cable company is conducting trials of a new system that uses DPI to prioritize traffic from online applications it arbitrarily deems "time sensitive." Cox has a history of DPI usage: Research by the Max Planck Institute in Germany last May indicated that Cox was engaging in the same blocking practice as Comcast.

Read the full Free Press paper, "Deep Packet Inspection: The End of the Internet as We Know It?", a co-author of which states that "the Cox trial, coupled with other DPI abuses, is setting the alarming precedent that Internet service providers can pick winners and losers online."