Hey folks, as a first blog I thought I'd introduce myself and the project I represent - Copowi.

My name is George Matafonov and I represent Copowi, which stands for Community Powered Internet. COPOWI started off as a simple experiment to gauge if concern about net neutrality was strong enough to create a market segment. If a market segment does exist then we can start to use market forces to put additional pressure on the telcos and cable companies.

With virtually no promotional budget and no expectations we managed to create a small market segment (just under 2000 subscribers) in less than two months. This is not ground-shaking by any means but it does confirm the potential for a market segment does exist, but the most important outcome is that it gave us additional insights into the problem which we otherwise would not have got. At the expense of boring people who have been immersed in these issues for years, I thought I'd share some of the key insights.

Because of our IT background we knew the problem had arisen because of technology, in particular the advent of "deep packet inspection" which allows the telcos to micro-manage the data that flows through their networks. We all know their arguments for doing so, and we recognize the potential implications, so I won't repeat them here. To us, at least, the solution was simple: use technology to defeat technology. The current deep packet inspection technology can be defeated by utilizing encryption. No deep packet inspection capability: no tiered Internet, simple.

In our field of work encryption is second nature and we have run secure proxy servers for years. We had a workable solution up and running within a couple of weeks and offered it as a new service called Copowi Secure Surfing. We offered the service virtually at cost at $4 per month (which could be reduced substantially once subscriber levels rise.)

We have also long recognized the privacy implications of "free" email services like Google and Yahoo and have been using our own secure email facility with end-to-end secure connections when needed. It seemed obvious that we could also offer this as a new service which we called Copowi Secure Email.

We wrapped it all in a campaign called: "Become Invisible for Net's Sake!" and thought we had a way to reach a far greater audience than simply those seeking ISP services. In particular, we thought we had hit on a way to overcome one of the key barriers to tackling the net neutrality issue and that is most people not only don't understand what it is all about, but the term "net neutrality" itself is a disaster from a marketer's perspective.

To our surprise, the response, even from our 2,000 subscribers was underwhelming to say the least. Less than 200 people took up the service. This was really puzzling given that we just provided a simple, workable and affordable solution to the whole problem of net neutrality.

One of the reasons for this response we assumed was that most of our subscribers are probably more tech-savvy than us and were already doing what we were proposing. Indeed many were, but then we started to notice that over 75% of our subscribers were using free email services as their primary email address. While it is not unusual to use the free email services as disposable addresses, we all do it, but not as your primary email address.

Delving further it started to dawn on us that there are two key challenges we need to meet if we are to achieve our goal of a fair and open Internet:

1. We need to recognize that there has been a covert and concerted campaign by various corporations into changing attitudes towards online privacy. This ranges from creating the perception that adequate protections already exist, to the idea that online privacy is no longer possible and something we need to sacrifice if we want to be part of the online community. These perceptions have laid the groundwork for the monetizing of services like email and social networks.

2. The grassroots community has been so focused on a legislative solution to network neutrality it has created the perception that all can be solved by bureaucrats and politicians.

When we take these two developments into account it is easy to see why our "Become invisible for Net's Sake!" campaign was falling on deaf ears. The first point says either the problem does not exist or you can't do anything about it. The second says if it does exist, the government will fix it. Both placate the user into inaction.

What most people fail to realize is that the surrender of our online privacy poses just as great a danger to an open and fair Internet as does the issue of net neutrality. Even if the threat from the telcos is nullified by legislation, the threat to the Internet will still remain if we meekly surrender our right to privacy. This is because the information that we leak empowers corporations and this power can and will be wielded for the advantage of those same corporations and at the expense of an open and fair Internet.

In our promotional material we liken the issue of online privacy to the issue of climate change. For decades corporations worked diligently in trying to debunk climate change because it posed a threat to their business models. Now they are working diligently to placate concerns about online privacy in an effort to capitalize on the online profit bonanza. This must be exposed in the most emphatic way.

While we are clearly not alone in our concern about online privacy and there are many concerned individuals and groups, what we do need, however, is a concerted grassroots campaign on privacy along the lines of "Save the Internet" campaign. But rather than calling on people to protest, the campaign would focus on users taking responsibility for their online privacy and using encryption where possible is a great starting point. We can make our technology available for both secure browsing and secure email at cost, or with any profits going directly to the campaign fund.

There would be three very important outcomes. Firstly, it has the potential to totally derail the ambitions of the telcos. Secondly it would start to expose the attack on our online privacy and the severe implications not only for the Internet but ultimately to the very freedoms we currently enjoy. And, last but not least, it would start to counter the big advantage of the corporations - their very deep pockets ( If profits are diverted into the campaign fund).

The key point out of all of this is that calls for legislative solutions, particularly when it comes to online privacy plays into the hands of the corporations. The problems have arisen because of technological developments but technology is a two-edge sword and we can wield the same technology to counter the various threats. The Internet has empowered us to do more than protest and lobby.