New York Times reporter David Carr (12/19/11) takes a look at comedian Louis C.K.'s recent decision to webcast his own comedy special:

A scabrous and successful champion of the everyman, Louis C. K. decided last week to go direct with his fans: no cable special, no middleman, just a simple download for $5 on his website to see his comedy show Louis C. K.: Live at the Beacon Theater.

The show could be viewed as the consumer wished, with no rights protection or expensive subscription. A buy-it-and-watch-it proposition, no cable company involved. He was also, of course, enabling people to watch it free--without digital rights management, it was there for the pirating--and some went right to the torrent sites and did so.

How many people did? Close to 200,000, which means the comedian could earn somewhere in the neighborhood of $750,000. But more interesting was his take on the modern media landscape:

"OK, so NBC is this huge company and they have all these studios and these satellites to beam stuff out," he said, "but on the Web, both NBC.com and LouisCK.com have the same amount of bandwidth. We are equals and there are things you can do with that. This has been a fun little experiment."

That, in a nutshell, is what the discussion about net neutrality should be about.

I was struck by this December 30 headline at the Huffington Post: "Only 21 Percent Of U.S. Voters Support Net Neutrality."

Really? Well it turns out the poll was conducted by Scott Rasmussen, whose polling has made him a favorite at Fox News Channel. The real story here is that the poll question was clearly cooked up to achieve the desired outcome. As Amy Lee noted near the bottom of the piece,  Rasmussen asked this question: "Should the Federal Communications Commission regulate the Internet like it does radio and television?"

But the FCC's proposed net neutrality rules do not at all resemble regulation of radio and television, which (among other things) requires station owners obtain a government license to broadcast on the public airwaves. Lee writes that the question "defines net neutrality in a very restricted way." But that's putting it way too kindly. The poll is a fraud, and a familiar one. In 2009 Rasmussen did a survey about the Fairness Doctrine, which was debunked here at the FAIR Blog (2/17/09). Rasmussen asked respondents if "the government should require all radio stations to offer equal amounts of conservative and liberal political commentary." The Fairness Doctrine never did any such thing, but conservatives have long argued that it would squelch right-wing talk radio. They've been trying to do something similar with net neutrality, scaring people about a supposed government takeover of the internet.

The lead of the New York Times story today (12/2/10) on the FCC's new internet plan:

The plan from the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission to ensure an open and neutral Internet drew mixed reviews on Wednesday from consumer advocates and Internet service providers, presenting the agency with an uncertain way forward as it considers new broadband regulation.

Of course, there are many who think the plan most assuredly does not "ensure an open and neutral Internet"--leading to some decidedly unmixed reviews.  See the response from Free Press president Josh Silver, for instance: "FCC Chairman Announces Fake Net Neutrality Proposal."

In an unrelated bonus, the Times offers a novel explanation for relying on an anonymous source:

Now, Mr. Genachowski thinks he has found a way around the court's ruling, according to a senior FCC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the chairman's proposal was subject to change.

Well, if that's the standard for granting anonymity--which would seem to violate Times policy--then sources can only be named when discussing events and policies that will never change. Like the Times' use of anonymity to shield the powerful from accountability, apparently.

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 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."

Free Press has some good news (2/17/09) about the "$7.2 billion to expand broadband access" contained in President Obama's new American Reinvestment and Recovery Act:

The law attaches open Internet conditions to broadband funds and directs the Federal Communications Commission to produce a national broadband plan.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration will distribute the majority of the funds, $4.35 billion, through a temporary grant program. NTIA broadband projects must be completed within two years of the award, provide the greatest broadband speed possible, and adhere to Internet nondiscrimination and openness principles established by the FCC. The law also funds programs that promote increased broadband adoption in low-income communities.

While Free Press director Josh Silver is "pleased that this law requires taxpayer-funded networks to adhere to Net Neutrality principles," he warns that "these conditions only apply to the broadband lines built with stimulus money. We need Net Neutrality laws to ensure that all networks are open and free from discrimination." Read the FAIR magazine Extra!: "Deregulation's History of Empty Promises: Net Neutrality and the Supermedia Monopolies" (3-4/07) by Jeff Chester