On Friday, August 1, Moody’s Investor Service upgraded Greece’s government bond rating, indicating subtle economic growth for a country hit hard by the 2008 economic crisis. Plagued by structural weakness, along with a decade of mounting financial deficits, the Greek economy floundered from the outset of the 2008 recession, afflicting the Eurozone system until it was saved from the brink of bankruptcy in 2010. Eurozone countries and the International Monetary Fund have pumped 240 billion euros ($308 billion) in the Greek economy, floating the feeble country on the promise of exacting austerity measures including drastic cuts to public spending that have triggered unprecedented levels of poverty, decimating incomes and pushing the unemployment rate to 27 percent.

Moody’s recent vote of confidence in the Greek economy may however mark at turning point for the credit-strapped country, since the Moody’s upgrade is corroborated by other reputable credit agencies. On May 23, 2014 Standard & Poor and Fitch raised their ratings of Greece from B- to B, while Moody’s predicted a gradual decline of its massive national debt. While this credit rating remains at “junk” status, or below investment grade, Greece’s economy is projected to grow by 1.2 percent, the first significant uptick in seven years signaling that the country is near the end of its dismal recession.

If graffiti in Athens can tell us anything about this recent optimism, it is that Greece’s impending resuscitation has not come without its social costs. Moreover, the capitalist “invisible hand” is not the only hand of consequence. In July, preceding Moody’s report of Greece’s economic health, iNO, a Greek graffiti muralist, unveiled his latest piece. The mural, called “Wake UP,” portrays one hand saving another that lets go of a coin. “While the economic situation in Greece remains unsettled [ne s’arrange pas],” explained the French graffiti blog ALLCITY, “iNO made a blind wall in Athens with the theme of resurrection, the hand of God bringing to life a man fascinated by money.” The black and white mural cast against dense cream concrete buildings, prescribes a redemption that necessitates letting go of money, perhaps suggesting a return to more humanitarian, social, and fiscal policies in Greece. Since the outset of the 2008 economic crisis, iNO has been at the forefront of Greek political graffiti; his murals have illuminated the social consciousness of the recession. 

“People in Greece are under pressure,” iNO told The New York Times in April. “They feel the need to act, resist and express themselves… If you want to learn about a city, look at its walls. Take a walk in the center of Athens, and you will get it.” Nearly all of iNO’s murals contain a social message, whether implicitly or explicitly expressed. “No Future,” for example, depicts two faces of a baby: one searching the sky desperately, the other stares blankly at the viewer, or at the absence of future and economic promise in Athens. “System of Fraud,” shows the heads of two hellenistic statues, the bottom melting away, perhaps critiquing Athens tourism industry, or the mismanagement of its revenue. “Wake Up” in contrast, is a hopeful message, but also an admonishment against the abuses of capital.

Political graffiti has been a mainstay of dissent in Greece since the outset of the 2008 economic crisis. Activists against the government have plastered Athens’ city walls, banks, kiosks, trains, and cars with political messages like  “Their Wealth is Our Blood;” commenting on international bailouts to save Greece, “Wake Up! Fight Now!;” and even sardonic graphics advertising democracy, “Super Democracy (as seen on TV)” with a figure giving a middle finger.

Graffiti has functioned as “counter-propoganda” for the Greek people who have been devastated by austerity measures and no longer trust the government. Going forward, however, graffiti will mean more than a statement of protest; as a voice of the people, political graffiti will play a role in discussions about the restoration of the Greek economy and society. The upgrade of Greece’s credit rating marks a turning point for the Greek economy. Will Greece resume the self-destructive path of government corruption and financial mismanagement, or will the country espouse more humanitarian policies, shifting emphasis from boosting private investors to a more robust welfare for its people? If anything is clear, it is that Graffiti will remain part of the equation.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [aesthetics of crisis via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti Marks Turning Point in Greek Economy appeared first on Law Street.

The FCC is on the verge of allowing internet fast lanes that would allow content providers to pay for faster access for their customers. Read on to learn why this proposal has generated so much controversy.

What is an internet  fast lane?

When commentators say “fast lane,” they are usually referring to paid prioritization. This is when an Internet Service Provider (ISP), such as Comcast or Time Warner, charges a content provider, such as Google or Facebook, an extra fee for faster “lanes” of bandwidth. Effectively, the ISPs would be allowing content providers to pay for easier access to customers.

Netflix recently agreed to pay Comcast for faster access to its customers. This is the first deal of its kind.

Netflix is not happy about the deal at all. In a blog post, CEO Reed Hastings referred to the fee as an “arbitrary tax” and expressed concerns that escalating fees could continue to be charged to Netflix and other content providers. Netflix may have agreed to pay this fee not to gain an advantage but to gain download speeds they once had. This graphic from the Washington Post shows that Netflix’s download speeds on Comcast tanked during the negotiations and then suddenly spiked once Netflix agreed to pay the fee:

Why are ISPs allowed to create fast lanes?

ISPs like Comcast are allowed to charge content providers for faster access because of a recent court decision that struck down the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) rules regarding net neutrality. The FCC is the federal agency in charge of regulating communications over mediums such as radio and television.

Net neutrality is the concept that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. You should be able to load a Netflix page just as fast as you can load a YouTube page. This video from Mashable provides a clear visualization of the concept.

The FCC created regulatory rules in 2010 that would enforce net neutrality. Cable companies and other ISPs immediately cried foul and filed lawsuits.

On January 14, 2014, a U.S. appeals court overruled the new rules. The reason? Broadband Internet is classified by the government as an information service. The FCC does not have the authority to regulate information services. The Internet used to be classified as a telecommunications service until a 2005 Supreme Court ruling. The FCC is allowed to strictly regulate telecommunications services.

What is the FCC doing about fast lanes?

In the wake of the court ruling, the FCC is in the process of writing a new set of Internet rules that allow for fast lanes. For the past few months, the FCC has allowed public comment on its website on one main question: should the new rules allow fast lanes?

There is a possibility that these rules would permit only some heavily regulated fast lanes to exist. The FCC says that the rules would require these lanes be “commercially reasonable,” but that’s a vague requirement that could be exploited.

There’s also a possibility that the FCC could go in the opposite direction and ban prioritization. The FCC would do this by reclassifying broadband Internet as a telecommunications service, giving it the power to strictly regulate ISPs. This reclassification would almost certainly face a legal challenge by ISPs, as well as a challenge from Congress.

How have people reacted to this proposal?

The FCC received more than one million online comments about the proposed rule change in the span of five months. That is the most comments the agency has ever received, and almost topped the number of complaints the Commission received after Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” at the Super Bowl.

Activists and content providers alike are not happy that the FCC is even considering legalizing fast lanes.

The Internet Association, an industry group that represents companies like Amazon, Google, and Uber, submitted a lengthy comment to the FCC’s website arguing, in part, that “charging for enhanced or prioritized access […] undermines the Internet’s level playing field.”

The association also expressed concern that ISPs might provide prioritization to their own content. For example, Comcast owns NBC Universal. A fast lane rule would allow Comcast to prioritize access to NBC television streaming over the quality of other network streaming services.

John Oliver, host of HBO’s Last Week Tonight With John Oliver, took a more cynical view in this widely shared segment. Oliver accused the FCC and Chairman Tom Wheeler, who used to be a lobbyist for cable companies, of corruption. He also called on Internet trolls to flood the FCC with comments.

MoveOn, the liberal activism website, released this television ad encouraging viewers to call the FCC in support of network neutrality.

MoveOn’s lead campaign director Victoria Kaplan also released a statement saying that “MoveOn members strongly support Net Neutrality and are calling on the FCC to scrap proposed rules that would undermine an open Internet.”

ISPs, for the most part, are issuing vague statements about how they support an “open Internet.” For example, Comcast released a statement saying that “we support the FCC putting in place legally enforceable rules to ensure that there is a free and open Internet, including transparency, no blocking, and anti-discrimination rules.” This doesn’t really say anything specific. Comcast argued later in the statement against a reclassification of broadband Internet, but never argued why they should be allowed to charge for fast lanes.

In stunning contrast, AT&T provided a robust defense of fast lanes in its FCC comment. The whole document is definitely worth a read, but here’s the most important quote:

“In no other area of the economy does the government ban voluntary market transactions (here, for example, quality-of-service enhancements) specifically in order to prevent those with superior resources from offering better services to their own customers.”

The line AT&T concluded the paragraph with is equally important to understanding the company’s argument:

“In short, the theoretical basis of this rationale for a strict nondiscrimination rule is thoroughly unsound and anathema to a market economy.”

AT&T’s argument is pretty unique. It is essentially saying that not allowing content providers to pay for a fast lane or not allowing ISPs to offer such an “upgrade” goes against the very foundation of a capitalist economy.

What’s important about this argument is the claim by AT&T that the fast lane would only amount to an “enhancement” in service for some companies and not a downgrade in service for companies that do not pay the fee.

Many activists doubt this will be the case. Instead, the “free” lane would be significantly slower. As John Oliver put it in the previously embedded segment, “if we let cable companies offer two speeds of service, it won’t be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolt on a motor bike. They’ll be Usain Bolt and Usain Bolted To An Anchor.”

Conclusion

Soon, the FCC will create a new set of rules governing the Internet. It will either allow fast lanes to exist and face harsh public criticism or it will fight for net neutrality and face a barrage of lawsuits and challenges from ISPs and Congress. This is an issue you will want to keep an eye on if you use the Internet regularly.

Resources

Primary

FCC: FCC Launches Rulemaking On How To Protect The Open Internet

FCC: Comment: AT&T

FCC: Internet Association: Comment

Additional

Netflix CEO: The Case for Net Neutrality

Wall Street Journal: Court Tosses Out Open Internet Rules

CNET: 2005: FCC Changes Internet Classification

Hill: Former FCC Chairman on Net Neutrality

NPR: One Million FCC Comments Filed

Comcast: Comment

Guardian: Welcome to the Age of Digital Discrimination

MoveOn: Keep Internet Open

NextGov: The FCC is Getting Serious

Geeksided: MLB Speaks Out Against Fast Lanes

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Internet Fast Lanes Will Change How You Use the Web appeared first on Law Street.