If you aren't familiar with SOPA - the "Stop Online Piracy Act" or its companion in the Senate (called PIPA or Protect IP), you should be. This is legislation that would allow the US government to require Internet Service Providers block web sites without due process. Sascha Meinrath and James Losey from the New America Foundation explain the threat in Slate:

The interconnected nature of the Internet fostered the growth of online communities such as Tumblr, Twitter, and Facebook. These sites host our humdrum daily interactions and serve as a public soapbox for our political voice. Both the PROTECT IP Act and SOPA would create a national firewall by censoring the domain names of websites accused of hosting infringing copyrighted materials. This legislation would enable law enforcement to take down the entire tumblr.com domain due to something posted on a single blog. Yes, an entire, largely innocent online community could be punished for the actions of a tiny minority.

If you think this scenario is unlikely, consider what happened to Mooo.com earlier this year. Back in February, the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security seized 10 domains during a child-porn crackdown called “Operation Protect Our Children.” Along with this group of offenders, 84,000 more entirely innocent sites were tagged with the following accusatory splash page: “Advertisement, distribution, transportation, receipt, and possession of child pornography constitute federal crimes that carry penalties for first time offenders of up to 30 years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, forfeiture and restitution." Their only crime was guilt by association: They were all using the Mooo.com domain.

From our point of view, what is most interesting is not who is pushing this bill (Hollywood and the usual suspects that tried to kill the VCR because it would obviously destroy the movie industry) but who is not resisting. After all, whenever the issue of network neutrality comes up, the big telecom companies pay a bunch of organizations like Americans for Prosperity to create astroturf movements to oppose a "government takeover of the Internet." Of course, network neutrality is the opposite - a set of rules where the government requires corporations not dictate how subscribers use the Internet.

But here we have a literal government takeover of the Internet. Should SOPA pass, the federal government would decide what sites are allowed to be accessed by Americans and which cannot. The evidence thus far suggests that more sites will be harmed by incompetence as opposed to intentional political censorship but the entire approach is troubling, to say the least.

To get a sense of which elected officials are supporting this legislation, here are the cosponsors for HR 3261 in the House and cosposors for S 968 in the Senate. More details on how you can be involved at Demand Progress.

Many of the organizations who have strongly fought for an open Internet with strong network neutrality rules are pouring resources into stopping SOPA. This includes Free Press's Save the Internet, Public Knowledge, and others. Some of the network neutrality opponents, like the Wall Street Journal and Cato Institute have also warned against SOPA but other groups -- like Americans for Prosperity have been fairly silent. The next time AT&T and Time Warner Cable-sponsored groups start fear-mongering around policies that threaten to bring competition against their corporate sponsors, we must ask them where they were when the future of the Internet was truly threatened.

The Future of Music organization has reviewed an alternative to SOPA that may be a much better approach.

Below is a video about SOPA.

Image credit: monkeyc on Flickr.

What a difference two years and a strong grassroots campaign makes. Two years ago, Comcast's ability to spend $245,000 on a campaign of lies was the determining factor over Longmont's decision about using publicly owned infrastructure to expand broadband competition.

Yesterday, despite Comcast spending even more by again funneling hundreds of thousands through the Colorado Cable Telecommunications Commission, voters overwhelmingly supported question 2A - reinstating local government authority to offer telecommunications services using its infrastructure.

Full congratulations must go to the Longmont citizens who organized a truly grassroots campaign that sent people out on the streets with signs, organized informational events, disseminated press releases, maintained an information web page (and Facebook page), wrote letters to the editor, commented on online news stories, and otherwise educated their peers about the opportunity 2A offered. Craig Settles is also celebrating with a post describing the victory.

Once again, the question was:

Without increasing taxes, shall the citizens of the City of Longmont, Colorado, re-establish their City's right to provide all services restricted since 2005 by Title 29, article 27 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, described as "advanced services," "telecommunications services" and "cable television services," including any new and improved high bandwidth services based on future technologies, utilizing community owned infrastructure including but not limited to the existing fiber optic network, either directly or indirectly with public or private sector partners, to potential subscribers that may include telecommunications service providers, residential or commercial users within the City and the service area of the City's electric utility enterprise?

The results were 60.8% Yes, 39.2% No. 13,238 voted yes whereas 8,529 voted against.

The Times-Call has already posted a story about the results, including some curious points from the pro-Comcast group's spokesman (and Denver resident) George Merritt.

"While we remain concerned about the disappointing track record of municipal telecoms, we hope our city has learned from the mistakes made by other cities and that taxpayers are protected with whatever venture develops as a result of the passage of Question 2A," Merritt said.

Despite spending probably over $300,000 (we won't know for a few days), Comcast and allies couldn't even find a Longmont resident to be their spokesperson!!

Practically no one in Longmont supported Comcast's position, as we noted yesterday - everyone campaigning for office supported reinstating local authority to provide broadband services. The newspapers supported the effort. In debates, the only people willing to defend Comcast's position were from out of town.

For just about everyone, this was a no-brainer: The City should be free to use assets it built long ago to expand economic development and broadband access. And yet, Comcast's $300,000 still got 39% to support letting City assets go unused while local businesses and residents are overpaying Comcast and CenturyLink for those services.

One of the most unique ways Longmont's elected leaders discussed this issue occurred during a City Council meeting. During that meeting, each official approached the podium and made a public comment about why they supported the 2A initiative. Unfortunately, we have not been able to locate video or audio, but the idea may inspire other communities as they seek to educate the community about the benefits of local, community ownership.

In other good news, nearby Boulder also embraced local self-reliance by narrowly voting to consider municipalization of the electrical grid. Xcel Energy spent close to a million dollars in a similar scare-campaign to Comcast in Longmont but Boulder voters decided to trust their local government more than a distant mega-corporations. Progress.

Just one day after getting busted for lying about its supporters, a group funded by self-interested groups outside the community is accusing the City of distributing propaganda regarding an upcoming referendum over whether the City should have the authority to use an existing fiber-loop to spur economic development.

We developed a comic that explored the ways cable and phone companies use dirty tricks to fool people into voting against more competition in broadband (such as this "Look Before We Leap" Vote no group).

As if to prove our point for us, that group was busted for outrageously claiming the Mayor wanted people to vote no when the Mayor has been explicit in not just supporting the referendum but in condemning outsider groups like theirs from coming into the community to do the dirty work of anti-competitive incumbents.

Bryan Baum has appeared at several forums in support of 2A, including a Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce forum in which he urged out-of-town opponents of the ballot question to "get out of town" and let Longmont settle its own issues.

The group said "This is obviously a mistake," Merritt said. "We'll get that fixed." Yeah sure. Whoops. We accidentally claimed a prominent figure as a supporter. Their response? They took his name off that list but left his wife's name on their site!

This is a group with absolutely zero credibility. But they have tons of funding -- likely from Comcast and incumbent trade groups that fight these initiatives everywhere to preserve what is essentially a monopoly for the cable and telephone companies. We just republished an op-ed outlining some these tactics from 2009.

Now the "Look Before We Leap" group is accusing the City of distributing propaganda.

Longmont's pamphlet, on the cover, states that the contents are "intended to provide a factual summary, including arguments both for and against the proposal, of issues of official concern to Longmont voters. It is not intended to urge a vote in favor of or against Ballot Question 2A." Inside, it gives the text of the ballot question, a brief history of Longmont's fiber optic network and the restrictions on it, election dates, and sections titled "What is being asked of voters?", "Those in favor believe" and "Those opposed believe."

"The city used taxpayer dollars to campaign with a glossy mailer, complete with high-quality pictures, an inaccurate history, a lengthy advocacy section and a clearly token statement that does not show how most other cities fail when they enter this unpredictable business," said George Merritt, a senior strategist for Onsight Public Affairs of Denver and spokesman for Look Before We Leap.

Of course, as we discuss on a daily basis, the vast majority of communities have succeeded in this space. Even if one narrows the field to communities that have attempted the most difficult challenge of building citywide networks (which is not what Longmont presently plans), there are very few failures. In the case of Longmont, where the city already has built the asset, the only risk lies in not using it to its full potential.

This is simply another case of a few massive companies using their power to prevent new competition that would greatly benefit the community and create new jobs. The question is whether the majority of voters will be able to see through the blizzard of propaganda pushed by Comcast's "Look Before We Leap" proxies.

As AT&T tries to buy out its competition via the T-Mobile merger, it has sent out its allies and minions to push the company line in communities around the country. Here are two events in Minnesota and Wisconsin you should be aware of.

On Monday, October 3rd, the Humphrey School of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota is going to host a debate between Amalia Deloney (MAG-Net Coordinator and friend of MuniNetworks.org) and Former Congressman Rick Boucher on the subject of AT&T's attempt to buy T-Mobile (which just happens to be the low cost provider in the wireless space).

A few short years ago, one would have expected Rick Boucher to champion opposition to this anti-competitive merger, but alas, the good citizens of his district rewarded his many years of hard work in Congress by voting for his opponent in the last election. As one often expects to see in DC, Rick took a new job and now works for a law firm with AT&T as a client.

Suddenly Rick Boucher is the Honorary Chairman of the "Internet Innovation Alliance," a group that has a name that sounds like he should head it. But the IIA is little more than a puppet for AT&T and like interests. They use it as part of their astroturf campaigns to further AT&T's agenda -- ensuring that most Americans are stuck using a network designed for AT&T's interests rather than the public interest.

We wish Amalia the best in the debate. This is a far better program than the last time AT&T came to the U's Public Policy school, which featured a blatantly one-sided program attacking inter-carrier compensation rules that have been essential for supporting rural network investment.

If you want to attend, you should RSVP to the Center for Science and Technology Public Policy. It will be at 2:00 in the Wilkins Room. Unfortunately, I have a prior appointment and cannot attend.

But the fun doesn't stop in Minnesota - it continues to Wisconsin on Oct 12 when The Internet Innovation Alliance joins a panel at an event by WisBusiness in Madison. Once again, the panel is greatly tilted in favor of a few self-interested industry voices that will undoubtedly explain how what is good for a few giant corporations is best for America.

One hopes for a future where we can have real debates about these important issues without playing the "who is puppeteer" game. AT&T has a legitimate point of view and should be free to advocate for it -- but should do so openly.