The truth is that if we want to make sure small businesses can grow with the assistance of broadband, the Internet must remain open.

Black and Latino communities are coming together to keep the Internet open and free from discrimination. Because communities of color rely on the Internet and are increasingly embracing wireless technology, we are organizing to protect our online communication rights. These rights are currently at risk: FCC Net Neutrality rules provide few protections for wireless users — and a pending congressional resolution would overturn these rules and hand control of the Internet to corporations. What’s more, the Department of Justice has acknowledged that AT&T’s proposed merger with T-Mobile is a serious threat to wireless competition and would raise prices for consumers.

“Access to the internet is akin to a civil rights issue for the 21st century,” said David Cohen, Comcast’s executive vice president. “It’s that access that enables people in poorer areas to equalize access to a quality education, quality health care and vocational opportunities.”

"Quite frankly, people in lower-income communities, mostly people of color, have such limited access to broadband than people in wealthier communities."

Whether it's legal for a wireless carrier to cripple tethering services is unclear. Verizon agreed to follow open Internet principles as a condition of acquiring the spectrum that it uses for 4G wireless phones. One interpretation of that condition is that the company shouldn't attempt to restrict tethering on its 4G network -- though apparently it's still free to do so on the 3G network. … But aside from neutrality issues, Verizon's move clearly seems hard to justify from a pricing standpoint. Given that the company is already going to charge new users based on the amount of data they consume, there's no reason for it to also impose a surcharge for tethering.

Free Press will file a complaint today with the Federal Communications Commission against Verizon for violating the rules that govern the licenses for its LTE network. Licensees of the C Block of the upper 700 MHz block, over which Verizon runs its LTE network, may not “deny, limit, or restrict” the ability of their customers to use the applications or devices of the customers’ choosing. Recent reports reveal that Verizon has been doing just that by asking Google to disable tethering applications in the Android Market. Tethering applications, which allow users to make their phones into mobile hot-spots, implicate the customers' ability to use both the applications and devices of their choice. Free Press argues that by preventing customers from downloading tethering applications from the Android Market, Verizon is restricting not only the applications available to them, but also limits use of tethered devices such as laptop or tablet computers.

Today, take a moment to learn about a promising documentary and pledge some support to make sure it gets made! A short description:

Imagine if your favorite website was blocked or slowed down because it competed with the corporation that “owned” the Internet bandwidth. How would you react if your posts on Facebook were censored by the government? What would happen if independent blogs and news media became priced out of the Internet because they couldn’t afford the rates charged for a new Internet fast lane? What kind of power should lie within the governments? Should they have the ability to have a virtual Kill Switch?

We find these threats to the free and open Internet to be the single greatest danger to democracy today. #killswitch the film will inform and inspire action in a population largely unaware of these important issues.

Several days at the National Conference for Media Reform in Boston gave me time to reflect on the importance of protecting local authority to build, own, and operate their own networks connecting people and businesses to the Internet. Multiple presentations focused on the importance of and strategies for ensuring access to the Internet is not controlled by a few companies -- and most of these strategies are focused at federal government agencies and Congress.

While we support these efforts, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance is not a DC-centric organization. We try to help folks in DC learn about what is happening outside the beltway, but our passion and work focuses directly on helping local communities invest in themselves and preserve their self-determination. 

Access to the Internet will likely be the key infrastructure investment that determines how well communities fare in the coming years. Unfortunately, they have very little control over how those investments are made when the networks are owned by private, absentee companies. Efforts like Universal Service Fund reform, fixing the FCC, re-writing the telecom act, and ensuring network neutrality depend on overcoming incredibly powerful (due to their scale and lobbying power) interests in Washington, DC. But local communities have very little power outside their borders... with some in state capitals and practically none in the nation's capital.

A CBC show, Spark, offers a content-rich 40 minute interview with Barbara van Schewick discussing how the Internet developed and the role of network neutrality. Her explanation is very accessible, a great opportunity for people who are trying to learn more about the issue but frustrated at technical discussions. Highly recommended. She explains how the innovate applications and products we use today developed precisely because no one controls the Internet. The danger now is that powerful ISPs may exert more control and retard the innovative nature of the net.

Public Knowledge produced and released this video revealing the increasing divide between reality and what opponents of network neutrality claim.

Despite the FCC's lack of interest (or rather, Chairman G's lack of interest) in actually defending Network Neutrality and protecting the open Internet, we must defend the right of the FCC to ensure an Open Internet. Such is life... And right now a House amendment would deny funding to the FCC to implement net neutrality rules.

Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR), has authored Amendment 404 (aptly numbered, for us protocol geeks) to gut FCC authority to oversee companies like Comcast and AT&T. This goes above and beyond what even those carriers are asking for, though they no doubt hope it succeeds. For a quick primer on network neutrality, check out this infographic.

This amendment may be attached to the Continuing Resolution necessary to keep the government running -- a crucial resolution to pass. We have to get on the horn to ensure Representative vote against this resolution to ensure the FCC has the authority it needs to do its job (preventing AT&T, Comcast, et al. from becoming supreme gate keepers of the Internet). Many Republicans may be lost causes here due to party line discipline. However, a number of Democrats are leaning toward voting with Republicans on this issue, including one of Minnesota's: Representative Colin Peterson from the 7th District. If you are a constituent of these Representatives, make sure you contact them! Representative Peterson has previously voted in favor of network neutrality, so it is important to find out why he has changed his mind.

Network Neutrality had long been a bi-partisan issue with both Democrats and Republicans seeking to preserve the open Internet. But recently Republicans have been swayed by powerful interests that want big companies to decide how we can access the Internet.

These are key representatives that should be contacted. If you are a constituent or know people who are, make sure they call or email immediately!