November, 20 2009, 10:12am EDT
![Free Press](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012695/origin.jpg)
Free Press Urges New York City Council to Support Open Internet
NEW YORK
Testifying before the New York City Council today, Free Press
delivered signatures from more than 4,000 New Yorkers calling for
strong open Internet rules. The City Council is considering a
resolution (712A-2007) urging the federal government to protect Net
Neutrality.
"We are greatly encouraged that the New York City Council is taking
the lead on the vital issue of Net Neutrality and believe this
resolution will send a strong message to Washington and serve as a
model for other cities across the country," said Timothy Karr,
campaign director of Free Press, who testified at the hearing. "The
right policies will continue to advance the most democratic
communications technology ever devised. The wrong policies will
jeopardize this openness and hasten the global decline of U.S.
broadband services. We need to pass the right policies right now."
Thousands of Free Press activists also sent letters this week to
members of New York's congressional delegation, urging them to
co-sponsor the Internet Freedom Preservation Act (H.R. 3458) and
support the work of the Federal Communications Commission to institute
rules that would protect the open Internet.
Full Text of Karr's Comments:
Free Press is grateful for the opportunity to testify before the New
York City Council today. As public advocates, Free Press strongly
supports policies to protect an open Internet. We are greatly
encouraged that the Council is taking the lead on the vital issue of
Net Neutrality and are supporting efforts in other cities to follow
your example.
On Tuesday afternoon we asked Free Press members from New York City
to send a note to Congress about the City Council's efforts. In little
more than 48 hours, more than 4,200 New Yorkers put their names on a
letter that "applauds the City Council for considering this resolution"
and calls on Congress to stand behind a strong FCC ruling. I am
delivering a copy of their signatures to the Council with my testimony.
The FCC is weighing a Net Neutrality rule that will determine
whether the Internet will remain a tremendous engine for free speech,
innovation and equal opportunity. There is a great deal of passion
surrounding this issue as much is at stake for the tens of millions of
Americans who rely upon the Internet every day.
Despite the debate, I don't believe anyone on today's panels or in this room would dispute these two notions:
First, over the past 40 years, the Internet has emerged as an unprecedented tool for:
- spreading innovative ideas,
- increasing public participation in our democracy, and
- fostering economic opportunity, even in the most overlooked communities.
Second, I don't believe that we would disagree that we need sound
public policies to encourage faster, more open and affordable Internet
access for everyone in the country.
The right policies will continue to advance the most democratic
communications technology ever devised. The wrong policies will
jeopardize this openness and hasten the global decline of U.S.
broadband services.
We need to pass the right policies right now.
A lot has changed since I testified before you on Net Neutrality in 2007:
- We have a new President who has repeatedly pledged "to take a back seat to no one in [his] commitment to Net Neutrality;"
- President Obama appointed the principle architect of his Net Neutrality agenda, Julius Genachowski, to head the FCC;
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Commerce Committee Chair Henry
Waxman have become outspoken supporters of the FCC's efforts to pass a
strong Net Neutrality rule. - And, perhaps most importantly, more than 1.6 million people
across the country have contacted their elected representatives urging
them to support Net Neutrality.
Unfortunately, though, a lot has stayed the same, too:
In the first three quarters of 2009, AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and
their trade groups spent nearly $75 million and hired more than 500
lobbyists to discredit an open Internet.
And that's just the money we know about. They have also funneled
untold sums to phony front groups, think tanks and populist-sounding PR
campaigns. As we've seen with the health care and global warming
debates, any effort at reform will come under a relentless assault from
deep-pocketed institutions that prefer the status quo.
The money against Net Neutrality is being spent to lock in incumbent
control in America. The present phone and cable duopoly provides 97
percent of fixed broadband connections into American homes. More and
more users are staring to use these connections to create and share
media, and in response these companies have moved rapidly to
reverse-engineer the openness that's the hallmark of the Internet.
The Internet's True Marketplace of Ideas
The history, however, is clear. The Internet was born in a
regulatory climate that guaranteed strict nondiscrimination. Internet
pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee always intended the
Internet to be an open and neutral network. And nondiscrimination
provisions have governed the nation's communications networks since the
1930s.
Originally the Internet's physical wires were regulated separately
from the content flowing over them. The reason for this was simple: to
keep monopoly owners of infrastructure from using their power to
distort the Web's free market.
This "common carriage" protection worked brilliantly. For two
decades, the Internet thrived with low barriers to entry, equal
opportunity and consumer choice. Remove Net Neutrality, and this
marketplace tilts in favor of the network owners. And that's what is
happening.
After intense corporate lobbying, the FCC pulled the carpet from
beneath this marketplace of ideas, in 2005 removing the
nondiscrimination protections that guaranteed Net Neutrality.
Soon after, the top executives of phone and cable companies
announced their intention to change the Internet forever. In the pages
of the Washington Post, BusinessWeek, Wall Street Journal, they spoke
of plans to become the Internet's gatekeepers and begin discriminating
against content that doesn't generate extra income for them.
Internet Policy: Who Benefits?
Some will argue before you today that the Internet has prospered
free of regulation. This is a red herring. The Internet has always had
baseline consumer protections written into law.
The real question isn't: "Should we regulate the Internet?" Without
forward thinking broadband policies, America's economy will suffer. The
real question should be: "For whom do we create this policy?"
The phone and cable companies have held Washington's policymaking
process in their grip for far too long. But for all their talk about
"deregulation," the cable and telephone giants work aggressively to
force through regulations that:
- protect their market monopolies and duopolies,
stifle new entrants and competitive technologies in the marketplace, and - increase their control over the content that travels over the Web
It's now up to the FCC to pro-actively reinstate Net Neutrality.
Without this anti-discrimination rule, phone and cable companies will
have both the incentive and ability to shut the doors on our 40-year
experiment with open media.
We need to protect the open Internet as the essential infrastructure
of our time. It is the social tool with which we will build a more
prosperous, open and just nation. Free Press is encouraged by the
Council of the City of New York efforts to adopt Resolution No. 712. It
will have far reaching implications.
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
US Voter Registrations Surge as Republicans Try to Limit Ballot Access
One group said it has registered over 100,000 new voters since U.S. President Joe Biden dropped out of the 2024 race.
Jul 26, 2024
The group behind a popular get-out-the-vote technology platform said Friday that it's registered more than 100,000 new U.S. voters since President Joe Biden withdrew from the 2024 presidential race, a surge that came amid mounting Republican efforts to make it harder to register and vote.
Vote.org said that 84% of voters registered in the new wave are under age 35. Nearly 1 in 5 new registrees is 18 years old. Andrea Hailey, the group's CEO, said that "since 2020, we have led the largest voter registration drive in U.S. history," with more than 7.8 million people registered.
After dropping out, Biden endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to face former Republican President Donald Trump and Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) in the November election. The new presumptive Democratic candidate has already earned endorsements from many Democrats in Congress and groups advocating on issues including climate, labor, and reproductive rights.
Vote.org's success comes as Republicans at the federal level are proposing and passing legislation creating obstacles to the ballot box.
Earlier this month, U.S. House Republicans passed Rep. Chip Roy's (R-Texas)
Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which would require proof of American citizenship to vote in federal elections. Republicans claim the bill is meant to fix the virtually nonexistent "problem" of noncitizen voter fraud.
However, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.)
slammed the bill as a "xenophobic attack" meant to silence "Black voices, brown voices, LBGTQIA+ voices, [and] young voices."
Lee said the SAVE Act underscores the need to pass her recently introduced Right to Vote Act, "which would establish the first-ever affirmative federal voting rights guarantee, ensuring every citizen may exercise their fundamental right to cast a ballot."
Earlier this year, U.S. Senate Democrats also reintroduced the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, legislation its sponsors say will "update and restore critical safeguards of the original Voting Rights Act."
Meanwhile, Republican-controlled state legislatures and red-state governors are enacting laws imposing tough restrictions on voter registration, with violations punishable by stiff fines that critics say are meant to dissuade people from registration drives and similar efforts.
Again under the guise of preventing fraud, Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis last year signed legislation limiting voter registration drives, with fines of up to $250,000 for violators.
"These draconian laws and rules are like taking a sledgehammer to hit a flea," Cecile Scoon, an attorney and president of the Florida chapter of the League of Women Voters,
toldThe New York Times in an article published Friday.
Three years after Kansas passed a law making "false representation" of an election official a crime, campaigners say it's become extremely difficult to sign up new voters.
"In 2020, even with the pandemic, we had registered nearly 10,000 Kansans to vote. Now, we haven't been able to register anyone," Davis Hammet, president of the youth voter mobilization group Loud Light, told the Times.
In Louisiana, Republican state lawmakers quietly passed legislation making it easier for election officials to toss out absentee ballots with missing details, limiting how people can mail in other voters' ballots, and restricting the ability to assist people with disabilities with their ballots.
"What we've found is that these measures have a disproportionate impact on voters with disabilities, both Black and white," NAACP Legal Defense Fund senior policy counsel Jared Evans
toldNola.com earlier this week.
"It's clear that their goal is to make it harder to vote, harder for specific communities to vote especially," Evans added. "What they don't realize is that these laws hurt white voters, too."
In Nebraska, Republican Secretary of State Bob Evnen last week
ordered county election offices to stop registering voters with past felony convictions who have not received official pardons. The move came after the state's unicameral Legislature passed a bill granting voting eligibility to felons immediately after they have completed their sentences instead of waiting two years.
"We refuse to accept thousands of Nebraskans having their voting rights stripped away," ACLU of Nebraska legal and policy fellow Jane Seu said in a statement. "We are confident in the constitutionality of these laws, and we are exploring every option to ensure that Nebraskans who have done their time can vote."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Warn Manchin-Barrasso Permitting Bill 'Is Taken Straight From Project 2025'
"You thought Project 2025 was just a threat after the election? It's actually happening *right now,*" said one climate campaigner.
Jul 26, 2024
Climate and environmental defenders on this week implored U.S. senators to block a permitting reform bill introduced this week by Sens. Joe Manchin and John Barrasso that campaigners linked to Project 2025, a conservative coalition's agenda for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
Common Dreamsreported Monday that Manchin (I-W.Va.) and Barrasso (R-Wyo.)—respectively the chair and ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee—introduced the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) noted that although the proposal "includes several positive reforms for the accelerated development of transmission projects," it also advocates "limiting opportunities for communities to challenge projects, loosening oversight for drilling and mining projects, extending drilling permits and fast-tracking [liquified natural gas] permits, and several other provisions friendly to fossil fuel giants."
"This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
These are nearly identical policies to what's proposed in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership. The plan, which was spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, calls for "unleashing all of America's energy resources," including by ending federal restrictions on fossil fuel drilling on public lands; limiting investments in renewable energy; and rolling back environmental permitting restrictions for new oil, gas, and coal projects, including power plants.
While Manchin has been trying—and failing—to pass fossil fuel-friendly permitting reform legislation for years, Brett Hartl, director of public affairs at the Center for Biological Diversity, said that his "Frankenstein legislation is taken straight from Project 2025, and it's the biggest giveaway in decades to the fossil fuel industry."
Hartl said the bill "deprives communities of the power to defend themselves and gives that power to Big Oil by making it harder for communities to challenge polluting projects in court," and "prioritizes the profits of coal barons over public health."
"And it mandates oil and gas extraction in our oceans," he continued. "The insignificant crumbs thrown at renewable energy do nothing to address the climate emergency."
"Monday was the hottest day in recorded history," Hartl noted. "It's shocking that as the climate emergency continues to break records around us, the Senate continues to fast-track the fossil fuel expansion that is killing us. This dangerous bill doesn't deserve a floor vote."
Hartl added that "to preserve a livable planet," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) "must squash this legislation now."
Manchin—who has said this will be his last term in office—has been a steadfast supporter of the fossil fuel industry, partly because his family owns a coal company. The senator says his permitting reform bill "will advance American energy once again to bring down prices, create domestic jobs, and allow us to continue in our role as a global energy leader."
However, Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's U.S. manager, warned Thursday that "this bill is yet another dangerous attempt by Sen. Manchin to line the pockets of his fossil fuel donors, sacrificing communities and our climate along the way."
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else," she continued. "It would unleash more drilling on federal lands and waters, unnecessarily rush the review of proposed oil and gas export projects, and lift the Biden administration's pause on new LNG exports."
"We urge Congress to reject this proposal and commit to action that protects frontline communities from the impacts of fossil fuel development and the climate crisis," Rosenbluth added.
"Don't be fooled: The Energy Permitting Reform Act is another dirty deal to fast-track fossil fuels above all else."
NRDC managing director of government affairs Alexandra Adams said Wednesday that "this bill is a giveaway for the oil and gas industry that will ramp up drilling and environmental destruction at a time when we need to be putting a hard stop to fossil fuels."
"We cannot afford to roll back so many of our bedrock environmental and community legal protections and offer a blank check to the oil and gas industry," she stressed. "We need new solutions for permitting if we are going to meet our clean energy potential and address the climate challenge. But this is not it."
"This bill would altogether be a leap backward on climate, health, and justice if passed into law," Adams added. "The Senate should reject it and look toward alternative solutions already being considered."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Nothing To Eat': War-Torn Sudan Faces Mass Famine as Military Delays Aid
Both parties in Sudan's civil war are to blame for a looming mass famine, experts say, and the military's blocking of U.N. aid at a border crossing with Chad exacerbates the problem.
Jul 26, 2024
Sudan's military is blocking United Nations aid trucks from entering at a key border crossing, causing severe disruptions in aid in a country that experts fear may be on the brink of one of the worst famines the world has seen in decades, The New York Timesreported Friday.
The border city of Adré in eastern Chad is the main international crossing into the Darfur region of Sudan, but the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), the state's official military, which is engaged in a civil war with a paramilitary group called the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has refused to issue permits for U.N. trucks to enter there, as it's an RSF-controlled area.
U.S. and international officials have issued increasingly alarmed calls for steady aid access to help feed the millions of severely malnourished people in Darfur and other areas of Sudan.
Last week, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the United States ambassador to the U.N., said that the SAF's obstruction of the border was "completely unacceptable."
Both warring parties in Sudan continue to perpetrate brazen atrocities, including starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. This piece focuses on the SAF's ongoing obstruction of essential aid. The situation is catastrophic. The policy is criminal. https://t.co/FKhqQh3EI9.
— Tom Dannenbaum (@tomdannenbaum) July 26, 2024
The Sudanese who've made it out of the country and into Adré reported dire and unsafe conditions in their home country.
"We had nothing to eat," Bahja Muhakar, a Sudenese mother of three, told the Times after she crossed into Chad, following a harrowing six-day journey from Al-Fashir, a major city in Darfur. She said the family often had to live off of one shared pancake per day.
Another mother, Dahabaya Ibet, said that her 20-month-old boy had to bear witness to his grandfather being shot and killed in front of his eyes when the family home in Darfur was attacked by gunmen late last year.
Now the mothers and their families are refugees in Adré, where 200,000 Sudanese are living in an overcrowded, under-resourced transit camp.
In addition to those that have made it out of the country, there are 11 million people internally displaced within Sudan, most of whom have become displaced since the civil war began in April 2023.
An unnamed senior American official told the Times that the looming famine in Sudan could be as bad as the 2011 famine in Somalia or even the great Ethiopian famine of the 1980s.
In April, Reutersreported that people in Sudan were eating soil and leaves to survive, and The Washington Postcalled it a nation in "chaos," reporting that World Food Program trucks had been "blocked, hijacked, attacked, looted, and detained."
In late June, a coalition of U.N. agencies, aid groups, and governments warned that 755,000 people in Sudan faced famine in the coming months.
The U.S. last week announced $203 million in additional aid to Sudan—part of a $2.1 billion pledge that world leaders made in April, which some countries have not yet delivered on.
Some officials including Thomas-Greenfield, who has dubbed the situation in Sudan "the worst humanitarian crisis in the world," have called for the U.N. Security Council to allow aid delivery into the country even in the absence of SAF approval; it's believed that Russia would veto such a measure.
Sudan's civil war has seen a great deal of international interference. Amnesty International on Thursday published an investigatory briefing showing that weapons from Russia, China, Serbia, Turkey, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) had been identified in the country. And The Guardian on Friday reported that the passports of Emirati citizens had been found among wreckage in Sudan, indicating the UAE may have troops or intelligence officers on the ground, though the UAE denied the accusation.
The International Service for Human Rights on Friday warned that both the SAF and RSF were engaged in wrongful killings and arrests, especially targeted at lawyers, doctors, and activists. The group called for an immediate cease-fire.
The SAF and Sudanese government figures have cast doubt on international experts' claims about famine in the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular