Why is Verizon censoring us? And why should we care?

It's widely acknowledged that our constitutional democracy is at a crossroad.

In recent years we've seen consolidation of media ownership increase the costs of political campaigns. To reach voters effectively candidates have had to buy ever more expensive TV spots. Thus, the costs of effectively participating in the public forum have skyrocketed. And the mass media audience has been exposed to ever narrower sources of information and views on vital public matters.

As a result:

• Political campaigns are increasingly dominated by vested-interest contributions from lobbyists
• Local and state representatives are increasingly resonsive to out--of-state money and influence
• The private citizen has ever less influence with his or her elected officials.

It's become all too plain that large factions within our realm despise democracy; actively seek to supress free speech; limit access to vital public information, curtail voting, civil, and constitutional rights of vast segments of our polity.

We've seen,orchestrated efforts to keep registered voters from the polls -- often with active complicity of elected and/or appointed public officials. As you read this there is a major effort by one political party to suppress and/or bias electoral participation by requiring all voters to show national ID cards at the polls -- said nakedly, to effectively disenfranchise otherwise qualified citizens.

And we've seen elected officials lock essential public information away from voters in the interest of "national security."

And we've seen media outlets and investigative reporters viciously intimidated when they've challenged official dogma or policy.

And we've seen the fundamental and long-standing right of habeas corpus legislated out of existence.

We've been illegally spied upon and made unwitting party to torture as national policy.

We've seen all this with little public debate before the fact. Much has been thrust upon us as fait accompli.

We've seen our Constitutional and Bill of Rights mocked, reinterpreted far beyond legal precedent, and conveniently disregarded when found obstructing the will of the monet.

So we as citizens now have a fateful choice. Do we want a vigorous, open democracy with rule of law based on effective civil rights?

Or do we want to be further herded into ideological and consumer behavioral corrals; influenced to support big-power big-money agendas through controllel-information, political spin, fear, and slick behavioral marketing technology?

The Internet is at a similar crossroad. The Internet was Initially financed by taxpayers. The software infrastructure was substantially developed by idealistic volunteers participating in the Open Source movement. The Internet was built on a fundamental philosophy of openness. The Interenet was seen as a public good, larger than any one company. The Internet was seen as the wonderous new medium that could support a diverse environment of public and private information and services. All could have access. All could contribute.

For an articulate overview of this Open Web philosophy, see Brad Neuberg's essay What Is the Open Web and Why is It Important?

http://codinginparadise.org/weblog/2008/04/whats-open-web-and-why-is-it-important.html.

Three of ten central tenets of the Open Web, according to Neuberg, are decentralization, transparency, and openness, all essential qualities of a functioning democracy.

In other words, the Internet is envisioned by many who built it as the last and best hope for restoring vital democratic practices to our land.

But now that the web has become a world-wide resource, we see the pterodaktls hovering.

Large private companies and national entities are seeking to control access to the web; control content. They want to keep us clustered and segregated in their restrictive corrals subservient to their narrow goals and interests. They want to perpetuate the very tendencies and impulses that so threaten our democracy.

This is precisely the thrust and error of Verizon's efforts to:

• lobby against effective broadband competition
• lobby against Net Neutrality
• block connection of residential servers to their FIOS networks

The pursuit of dominant control of the web -- whether through control of access or content -- is like the long discredited dream of world domination. It may be a profitable and heady ego trip in the short term. But in the long term it is vastly distructive of civil society, deep cultural values, and peace.

So, Verizon... Do you want to be a good citizen respected by all? Or do you want to continue in oppostition to a vital democracy?

We hope you choose the right thing.

Why is Verizon censoring us? Pt. 8

Let's debate one last defense of Verizon's anti-residential server policy:

"If Verizon and other residential ISPs allowed web servers on their networks, then you'd have data centers in every basement."

So? Wonderful! All the more citizens participating in the public forum -- contributing information, ideas, and views.

No need to worry about the load on Verizon's network. They can easily enough develop tiered pricing based on bits/month that allocates fair-share operating costs to heavier users.

It's win win win.

Verizon and other ISPs win profitable network traffic.

Residential users win server access to the network.

Civic society wins greater diversity of information and views.

Stay tuned...

Why is Verizon censoring us? Pt. 7

Ah, at last, an objection with teeth!

"Most residential computer users have little regard for computer security. Many residential computers are wide open to spammers and crackers. And many of these vulnerable home machines have become 'bots,' compromised and recruited by crackers to relay spam, viruses, worms, and other tainted content across the Internet. Verizon's policy of forbidding Internet servers on their residential FIOS network makes the Internet a safer place."

Those who believe the above have one thing right: spammers, crackers, "bot" machines, viruses, worms, and other tainted digital content are indeed a problem. They're a problem for computer users, the computer and telecommunications industries, our economic system as a whole and, indeed, national security and international peace.

But locking residential servers out of the Internet is like locking up all teenagers since they're the age-group most likely to commit crime. For one thing, residential computers are not the only systems vulnerable to cracker exploitation; many business and other institutional machines fall victim as well.

Restricting residential servers is a form of blame-game, blame the victim rather than put resources into mobilizing a comprehensive technical, legal, and international policy framework that truly addresses the issue.

In Verizon's case, it may even be a form of blame-game for profit - cynical policy with utter disregard for civic implications or responsibility.

For sake of argument, let's call the technologies and practices that facilitate abusive content "blackware" and the people who employ these technologies "digital thugs." The population of digital thugs ranges from mischievous teenagers to opportunistic thieves; from international organized criminals to agents of various nation states.

Motives range from kicks to greed, from corporate and international espionage to terrorist aggression. Digital thugs are relentlessly inventing ever more ingenious exploits. Security experts are ever on the run patching vulnerable software and back-filling with effective counter measures.

It is indeed too much, given current technology, to ask the average home or small business computer user to single-handedly keep the digital thugs at bay. But the solution is not to lock the hapless user out of the system. The solution is effective, coordinated action to develop technical, social, and legal counter measures -- a cyber immune system if you will.

The world-wide IT industry, network carriers like Verizon included, has the resources to make computers and networks far less vulnerable without compromising Internet access. At minimum they can provide routers with more effective filters and firewalls, easier-to-use software tools for detecting breaches, free scanning services to quickly isolate and quarantine compromised machines. And more, the industry as a whole, can develop products with more regard to security and industry-wide standards of product performance designed to enforce best-practice security measures from product design to network operation.

In fairness, most, if not all, of these efforts are now underway.

Governments can provide tougher laws and more effective enforcement. They can hold manufacturers accountable for producing hardware and software that falls short of industry security standards. They can devote more resources toward tracking down and prosecuting digital thugs. They can negotiate international treaties to secure cooperative enforcement of international cyber-security laws. They can sanction rogue nations that harbor and protect digital thugs.

But, yes, cyber security a balancing act. The Internet is based on trust and anonymity by design. It's the best of what we'd ask of civil society -- a relatively level playing field where a small kitchen web-store can compete with Amazon; a lone protester can influence as many citizens as a Madison Avenue campaign; a political candidate can match through small contributions the lavish funds of a lobbyist-supported opponent. It's a hot bed of innovation: Think Amazon, E-Bay, Google, MySpace. It's a catalyst for volunteer enthusiasm and effort -- just witness the Open Source movement which is responsible for much of the software that powers the Internet. The Internet has provided jobs and opportunity for millions; vitalized the economies of poor nations. And, to the minds of many, revitalized the public forum -- given many previously disenfranchised a voice in public debate.

These virtues can only be sustained on an open network that supports equality of bits, minimal regulation, and little to no censorship. These are the virtues we must uphold, protect, preserve, and treasure -- uphold in balance -- as we develop measures and policies to defeat blackware, isolate and disempower digital thugs.

Such balance is the essence of civil society. Enlightened law enforcement is essential to preserve fair play. Such balance must also be the essence of all measures to enhance computer and network security. All computers can be secured. Indeed, the most secure computer is unplugged, off-line, and locked in a vault. But locking up computers and locking out users kills the goose that laid the golden egg.

We can do better. Indeed, if we value a free, democratic, civil society, do better we must.

And Verizon can do far better than block residential servers from the Internet.

Stay tuned...

Why is Verizon censoring us? Pt. 6

And the objections roll in...

"Servers are for business. Why in the world would someone want to run a server from their home?"

Despite what the corporate royalists would have us believe, the business of citizenship is not business. The business of citizenship is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The preeminent corporate goal is profit. In pursuit of profit the corporate royalists and ideologues push for low to no corporate taxes, low to no corporate regulation, unfettered flow of capital, compliant labor, and voracious consumerism.

Corporate marketers would corral us into segments and niches; pander to our fantasies, fears, and greed; turn discretionary income into compulsory spending; hook us on credit card debt.

The naked corporate agenda, in other words, has little to do with the duties, responsibilities, and rewards of citizenship in a democratic system.

Indeed the trend has been toward marketing political candidates and policies with the same high-powered top-down consumer marketing technologies that have been so successful with cigarettes, automobiles, prescription drugs -- all in the interest of corporate goals; indeed, in all too many cases, the short-term, personal goals of top managements and majority shareholders .

Think Harry and Louise, the campaign that scuttle universal health care; Enron's drive for energy deregulation; or Exxon's anti-global warming propaganda campaign.

Result: The citizen has been increasingly side-lined, marginalized, squeezed out of the public forum. Government has been increasingly perverted into serving corporate interests rather than public interest.

This is not to deny the benefits that corporations bring to our life -- jobs, investment opportunities, diversity of products, vast lifestyle options. Nor is it to deny the high standards of citizenship that many fine corporations uphold.

But from the citizen's standpoint, corporate activities and goals are means to an end -- not ends in themselves.

In recent years the courts and some FCC commissioners have argued successfully that media consolidation is a good thing. It fosters "efficiency." Efficiency is a fine corporate goal. But is it a proper goal for citizenship?

Effective citizenship and democratic participation is a messy process of digesting complex information, weighing many contending points of view, struggling toward consensus, hammering the best ideas into policy, and monitoring the execution of policy.

Media consolidation works against every one of these processes: information is diluted, the diversity of viewpoints is narrowed, editorial bias works against broad consensus, policy options are limited, the watchdog functions of the media are muzzled.

Verizon certainly has a right and obligation to pursue fair profit from its operations. But it also has a significant social function as a prominent carrier of information within our democratic system. Since it has a near monopoly in many parts of it's service area, it's a key gatekeeper to the Internet for many. This means, I would argue, that it has an additional obligation to the broader public to facilitate rather than hinder public participation.

Verizon's policy of forbidding residential servers blatantly disregards this solemn responsibility.

I salute and support Verizon's role as a CARRIER of information; I abhor it's efforts to control CONTENT. Forbidding residential servers on the Verizon FIOS network and blocking incoming web and mail ports is an unacceptable policy of content control.

So, why would a citizen want a server at home?

-- share information and photos with family and friends
-- share hobby interests with fellow hobbyists
-- publish creative efforts -- literature, music, art
-- attract a community of common interests
-- express a grievance
-- express a minority political viewpoint
-- reaffirm a majority political viewpoint
-- participate in open-source software development
-- support a home business
-- support a local team, club, or civic organization
-- support a local candidate

In other words, a home server enables the citizen to participate in the broad public forum with potentially far more reach and influence than available through any other medium.

Verizon's FIOS policies are strictly in their selfish corporate interest. They work in diametric opposition to the needs and interest of the broader public. And more... they subvert our democratic process.

Stay tuned...

Why is Verizon censoring us? Pt. 5

Ok, I hear the first sputtering objection now...

"The very fact that you're speaking through this blog proves that your right to free speech is intact. What does it matter that you can't connect a server to the Verizon FIOS network as a residential customer?"

Fact is, this blog is hosted on a Google server. Google could shut it down in an instance with no recourse on my part. That's not free speech. That's speech by sufferance of a third party. Who's to say that I'm not self-censoring for fear that Google will shut me down?

Democracy depends upon informed citizens vigorously debating issues and ideas in a lively public forum. This requires multilateral communication. Ideally, every citizen should have equal right to speak out and be heard in the vast public forum.

But, excluding the Internet, only mass media -- newspapers, radio, television -- have the power to reach across our vast social, cultural, and political landscape. Problem is, they've been structured as one-way, top down, channels. Unless you own the outlets, or have a substantial advertising budget, you can only consume ideas generated by others. Not disseminate your own.

This is not a recipe for healthy democratic participation. Nor is it an effective way to bring the best ideas into contention; shine the light on incompetence, corruption, and malfeasance; generate broad consensus, or produce the most effective policy reflecting the very best thinking of the land.

Control over public debate and the public agenda through money and power has a lot to do with the ills of our democracy today. And as consolidation of the mass media into ever fewer corporate hands has accelerated these ills have become ever more acute.

The Internet, by design, provides the basis for broad, multilateral communication. It imposes no preferences upon which way bits travel. One-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, many-to-many, multilateral interactive -- it's all possible technically. This means that we, as citizens, can disseminate information and ideas around the world -- until, that is, corporate or governmental gatekeepers impose their own artificial barriers, dam up the flow, in their own self-interest.

This is exactly what Verizon's no server policy accomplishes. It artificially dams up the flow of public discourse in favor of those willing to pay more for the "privilege" of disseminating their information, ideas, and services through the Internet, a medium conceived and developed with taxpayer funds.

If I own my own server, operate it out of my residence, and connect to the Internet through a content-neutral Internet Service Provider, then I control how, where, and when I participate in the public forum. My data and access is as secure as I can make it. I have free speech. Yes, I'm perfectly willing to pay a fair price for the speed and volume of bits that flow through the pipes. But no one stands in the way of my expression.

But this is not the case under Verizon's current policies. And I contend that they're wrong.

Stay tuned...

Why is Verizon censoring us? Pt. 4

Ok, let's cut to the chase.

Verizon deliberately and aggressively seeks to curtail free speech and public debate in the following ways:

1) Exploiting it's lobbying power and control of local land lines to minimize and, where possible, eliminate, competition for broadband services.

2) Exploiting it's lobbying power to restrict the right of every Internet user to access any Internet site with equal ease, speed, and quality.

3) Propagating price policies and terms that prohibit residential accounts from attaching servers to the FIOS lines, effectively blocking ordinary citizens from using the full power of the Internet to express their views in the public forum.

The result is de facto control over Internet content generated within Verizon's service area.

In other words, Verizon's policies impose, at minimum, a costly toll on citizen access to the publicly developed Internet and, arguably, curtails it outright for many. The net result is a shameful assault on our democratic system and most fundamental democratic values.

For more on the first policy, see:

Broadband Front Lines: Broadband wars taking toll on smaller competitors - http://telephoneonline.com/broadband/finance/wts_transcom_verizon_032805/

Or...

Verizon Is Hit with Lawsuit by Richmond, Va., Telephone Company - http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7829482_ITM

For more on the second policy see:

Why should you care about network neutrality? - http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/

The third policy may seem like a geeky sideshow. But it's not.

Stay tuned...

Why is Verizon censoring us? Pt. 3

While we're considering hypotheticals....

Your state builds a great new expressway that cuts 30 minutes off your daily commute. (I know... might have happened in another era. Fat chance today.)

The expressway is financed by massive bond issues. The bonds will be retired over many years by future tax revenues -- your future taxes.

But now the expressway is finished. The state finds itself strapped for funds. Leaping on the privatization bandwagon, it turns the expressway over to a mega-corporation for a pittance. The mega-corporation puts up toll booths, which increase your cost of commuting.

Fair enough, you say, the mega-corporation has taken on the costs of ownership and maintenance, they deserve fair recompense and profit.

But oddly, while you're still charged both ways, the toll is $50 per month higher in one direction.

Now how can that be fair?

Fact is, Verizon and every other Internet Service Provider benefits from massive government subsidies and investments. Verizon, for instance, has substantial real estate holdings in every city and town in their service area on which they pay no real estate taxes.

How so? Their telephone poles are exempt.

But more to the point, development of the Internet was largely financed by public money.

See: http://www.davesite.com/webstation/net-history.shtml

That said, many service providers, including Verizon, DO make substantial additional investments of their own. So there's no argument that they deserve to recoup their investments, cover their costs, and generate profit for shareholders through monthly ISP service charges.

All well and fine.

But when they censor us to further fatten their bottom lines they're stepping over the line.

How so?

Stay tuned...

Why is Verizon censoring us? Continued

Or, imagine this...

You are a tax-paying citizen of one of those quaint New England towns that still conducts semi-annual town meetings.

You're passionate about the proposed tax override -- the hot issue of the day. But just before you take your seat in the high-school auditorium an agent from a mega-corporation says, "OK, you can listen, but you've got to pay us if you want to speak."

Is this what our founding fathers had in mind? Verizon seems to think so.

Stay tuned...

Why is Verizon censoring us?

What would you say if a mega-corporation closed off the street in front of your house, put up a gate, and said, "Now, pay us a monthly fee or we won't allow your family or friends to visit your home!"

Outrageous, eh?

But this is exactly what happens, in a virtual sense, when you sign up for Verizon's FIOS service.

How so?

Stay tuned.