*sigh* Internet Neutrality is falling.

[Hellion]

Dear MoveOn member,

Just days ago, a Republican-dominated congressional committee struck a blow to Internet freedom by voting to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment.

The full House will vote on whether to preserve Internet freedom next week. Then, all eyes turn to a key Senate Committee that your Senator, Trent Lott, sits on. As his constituent, you have an important voice to play as the future ofthe Internet gets decided.


Net Neutrality has always been the law of the land until recently being threatened. It guarantees that all online speech is treated equally and prevents Internet providers like AT&T from deciding which websites work best on your computer. Without it, these companies can decide what you see and do online.

Here's where my hands are tied.
Obviously no one wants to call their senators/house representatives and raise hell over the issue.

Or perhaps they are, and they've just been put on "Ignore."

[Alex]

This is TERRIBLE!! The internet is the last and only place to get nin bias news.... I want to help but i dont know how :( where can i find my senators phone numer or adress?

[Epicurus]

WILL THIS AFFECT INTERNET-PORN?



If not, its irrelevant.

[final_cut]

WILL THIS AFFECT INTERNET-PORN?



If not, its irrelevant.

Yes, it will effect all internet access, maybe even online gaming connection speeds. for example, some ISPs may have a special rate for a certain group of sites, that for x amount of dollars, you can connect to those sites at a higher speed. Smaller sites made by low capital businesses or entrepeneurs that don't have the money to pay to be a part of a high-speed connectivity group may be overlooked by prefferred or sponsored sites/links. It may be more difficult to search (or not) or be connected to non-sponsored sites. Basically its the ISPs deciding who you connect to and how fast you do it. pay a little more, and certain sites/services load faster. It also will make certain web tools irrelevant, but I'm not quite sure how that works. Check NPR.org for more info on it, maybe I'll post a link later.

[Hellion]

Yes, it will effect all internet access, ......that don't have the money to pay to be a part of a high-speed connectivity group may be overlooked by prefferred or sponsored sites/links.................pay a little more........

How many of us are going to be able to afford stuff like this when we can barely afford gas and paying off shit? Or perhaps after the house and car (s?) internet support is tied with food in terms of priority?
Even when you pay, you'll likely end up getting the slow stuff, touted as being high speed and those who have the extra bits to spend get more, knowing it too.

Putting a higher price on the information super-highway for crap results.

edit: I'll give my senator/house rep a call and give details on my results to this group here.
Gotta write a clear and concise request/speech first though; doubt I'll get a healthy message across angry like.

[FistsofFury]

We should spread this information.

TO MYSPACE *flies away*

[Alex]

Actually i think things like porn wouldnt be affected too badly. i think some of the more heavy hit areas would be anything suggesting the government sucks. Kiss all those 9/11 conspiricy sites goodbye. I think that since 9/11 was one of the first major possible scandles done in the prime of internet comunications, the government learned how powerfull a non monoply controlled media can be (as opposed to televsion and radio) and just had to do something about it.

[aragami]

I e-mailed my Representative (Jim Davis) before he had decided to vote on the issue, I was very pleased when I saw later that he had voted for neutrality.

[AHVB]

What's the bills name?

[Alex]

I e-mailed my Representative (Jim Davis) before he had decided to vote on the issue, I was very pleased when I saw later that he had voted for neutrality.

whaaat??? He voted already?? Is it too late then?? And yeah whats the bill called? This is serious stuff...

From what i understand the bill makes internet like cable TV, as how the cable TV gives you choices on what you can see, and then you choose from those choices that have first been filtered by the companys. I guess the companys will owe a favor to congress if this gets passed huh? Goodbye last media for free speach :(

[Hellion]

I say kill them all.

[Nagata Lock II]

OOOOHHHH CAAAAAANADAAAAAAA!

Life's good north of the border.

[BruceLB]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/ Go there, sign the petition and mail your congressman.

[Hoonyo]

yeah right this is just stupid chain mail

plz send this email to 50 of your friends or the boogieman is gonna getu !!

[Million]

Since everything in the world always ends horribly...then this will of course be inevitable. There's no hope for this, or anything. The world only becomes worse in numerous ways as time goes on. The only "happy ending" in real life is the kind you get when bustin' a nut...and that's just a fleeting moment of bliss...one wonderful but small moment in an ocean of shit.

[tondashocka]

Didn't you guys know there is no god?

[CoMpOuNd]

hahahaa, suckaaahz.. up where the igloos roam the land, there are no boarders!!!!

[Roxie]

I signed the petition and sent a letter.

[Higher-Jin]

Since everything in the world always ends horribly...then this will of course be inevitable. There's no hope for this, or anything. The world only becomes worse in numerous ways as time goes on. The only "happy ending" in real life is the kind you get when bustin' a nut...and that's just a fleeting moment of bliss...one wonderful but small moment in an ocean of shit.

Well maybe if more people like you actually you kno... DID SOMETHING instead of ramble off into some kind of emo monologue then maybe something may actually get done. You dont' try once and give up, you keep complaining, and bitching, and making senator's lives miserable until you get what you want... THAT is the American way.

Ya know what if Vivid and Playboy all bought out the big Telecommunication companies and then you couldn't really see your amateur porn sites anymore? Think of all the amateur voyeur you'd be missing on, think about it dude, think about it. All this is can simply be seen as one thing: making us pay for better connections or simply making more money off companies that will pay them off at our expense, we won't get to go to the sites we want or if we do they can potentially be alot slower.

Think about it dude, everyone else too.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

Please you guys just try to do something, at least write a letter to your newspaper, try to get them to do something, ANYTHING. There were always be times where people try to step all over us and you can either lay down like a bitch and take it or you can at least try to grab their leg as they step over you so maybe you can make them fall down on their douchy asshole faces. I for one am sick of being a door mat to assholes like Verizon, who sold out their own fucking customers for profit in the past and would do it again in a heart beat, fuck them and if you want to go suck big corporate cock you can go ahead, but I'm actually going to try to DO something and win, lose, or draw... at least I know I tried.

[maxx]

yeah right this is just stupid chain mail

plz send this email to 50 of your friends or the boogieman is gonna getu !!

its not myspace.

[Higher-Jin]

This is a very real threat you guys

Blocking Innovation

The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control.

Corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:

* In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.

* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.

* Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.

* In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet

There's are just some of the abuses that have happened before and will happen again if net neutrality doesn't come into play.

[Bare Knuckle 2]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/ Go there, sign the petition and mail your congressman.

I just signed the petition and will also mail my congressman. Hopefully many others are doing the same so that this shit gets stomped.

[Hellion]

http://www.savetheinternet.com/


Thanks for the link, I'll give it a second running after work.
Your posts are real eye-openers, but so long as the "Cause"(winning the next election and sustaining the majority) exists in the minds of the majority of Congress and our beloved President, they'll pay heed to those who have, than the masses of those who have not.

But I'll give them Senators a call if I can.
If recent events are any indicator, stomping our vestiges of freedom seem in face of the threat of terror seems to be the M.O.

edit: I'm sure they're just alloting all emails that say "save/Internet/neutrality/net" etc to their junk bins, because they're bastards that way.
Though I take hope in those who say their Senator/House Rep voted for Net Neutrality rather than against.

[Sheng-Long]

This is a very real threat you guys

* In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.



I'm only answering the Canadian ones:

First of all let me point out that (and this is almost never mentioned), Canadian ISPs (including Telus, in fact they are the most vocal) have been trying to pursuade the Canadian government for a long time that it is bad policy for them to block content. This issue arose when talks of content blocking to child pornography sites and how to prevent them surfaced a few years ago. The government agreed. That is why it was quite unusual for Telus to do what they did. Telus' argument to the specific website blocking case was that privacy and security concerns were raised because personal information were made available on the website.

This matter was obviously controversial and the government took it into account in their recent Telecommunications Policy Review (recognizing the need for change and the government acted on it). The policy can be seen here: http://www.telecomreview.ca/epic/internet/intprp-gecrt.nsf/en/h_rx00054e.html


* Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.

LOL last time I read it on these "save the internet" sites, this read as "Shaw charges additional $10 for usage of other Internet-Phone products..." while the former issue regarding Telus remained verbatim. I guess the additional $10 dollar charge wasn't sensational enough to push the agenda eh? Gotta change it to something with more punch and feed on paranoia.

Good thing we are in a capitalist country, because Shaw does not have a monopoly of the market and Vonage (another company) filed a request for review to the CRTC of Shaw's Quality of Service (what Shaw claims the $10 dollar addional charge is for) policy.

These are the questions that Vonage raised regarding this issue:

a. What does Shaw's QofS Service consist of, from both a technological and service implementation perspective;

b. is Shaw's QofS Service properly viewed as an enhancement to Shaw's high-speed retail IS, or as a companion to local VoIP service;

c. does Shaw's QofS Service, in fact, deliver on the promise of enhancing a customer's use of the local VoIP service of a third party VISP;

d. if Shaw's QofS Service does, in fact, enhance a customer's use of this service, does it do so to any significant extent;

e. what is the justification for a recurring charge to the customer for a service that it appears, may consist of a one-time configuration of the Shaw-approved cable modem used by the customer to obtain Shaw's retail IS;

f. what is the take-up rate - past, present and likely future, of the Shaw QofS Service, and what is the likely effect of the service on competition in local VoIP services; and

g. what measures might be appropriate to ensure the Shaw QofS Service does not allow Shaw to discriminate unjustly among customers and against third party VISPs, e.g., the mandating of the QofS to all Shaw higher-speed Internet access customers, the ability of IS resellers or VoIP providers to resell the QofS Service, and on what terms and conditions, or other measures.

Also, the CRTC (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commision) ruled last year that it will REGULATE VoiP to build sustainable competition.Although a new set of issues arise from this, The BIG Telecom companies were told they couldn't price their local VoIP service below cost to stifle competition.

but the CRTC told new entrants in the internet telephony market that they can set their local VoIP rates as low as they want – only the large phone companies like Bell and Telus would have their VoIP rates subject to regulation.

[Hellion]

but the CRTC told new entrants in the internet telephony market that they can set their local VoIP rates as low as they want – only the large phone companies like Bell and Telus would have their VoIP rates subject to regulation.

That's interesting. Is it possible they might branch out similarly to how Nissan did it with Datsun and Toyota with Scion to test new waters and/or stifle the competition?

IIRC, not too sure, Microsoft was forced to "splinter" because it was too big, so on.

[Hellion]

As Congress prepares to vote, MoveOn and the Christian Coalition are joining forces to show that Internet freedom affects everyone.

Can you contribute $35 to run this unique MoveOn/Christian Coalition New York Times ad?



Click Here



Dear MoveOn member,

We never thought we'd see the day, but it's come: we're working together with the Christian Coalition. You read that right—the Christian Coalition has joined everyone from Google to MoveOn to the Gun Owners of America in the fight for Internet freedom. The momentum is on our side.

Internet companies like AT&T have been trying to win this fight by telling Republicans in Congress this is just a left-wing issue. But MoveOn and the Christian Coalition have designed a full-page New York Times ad to expose the truth: people across the spectrum are united behind Internet freedom! If we get that message out, we win.

The ad will cost $70,000 to run. If 2,000 people give $35 each, we'll be there. Plus, every dollar you give will be matched by a generous bequest.

Can you contribute to run an Internet freedom ad with the improbable pairing of MoveOn and the Christian Coalition? Click here to see the ad and make a donation:

https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html?id=7780-6968393-kRp6PRTxAhbMqeY2y_scvA&t=3

This ad will make a big splash in Congress, with the public, and in the news. We'll share the cost of the ad with our partners, and any funds raised above our share will help support the organizing costs of MoveOn's Internet freedom campaign.

Last year, we received a very humbling gift: a MoveOn member named us in her will for over half a million dollars. This money is set up as a matching fund for critically important initiatives like this one. Every dollar you give today will bring in a dollar from this bequest, up to $100,000.

Everyone knows we deeply disagree with the Christian Coalition on many issues. It's safe to say the same is true for them. But we can agree on preserving the Internet as a venue for democratic participation, economic innovation, and free speech.1 The only serious opposition to Internet freedom comes from AT&T and other Internet operators who are spending millions lobbying Congress for more control over what we see and do online.

To win this fight, we need to show Congress the huge public backlash they will face if they sell out the Internet. The pairing of MoveOn and the Christian Coalition is unheard of, and it's sure to get Congress' attention.

Help run this attention-getting ad featuring MoveOn and the Christian Coalition. You can make a contribution at:

https://civic.moveon.org/donatec4/save_the_internet.html?id=7780-6968393-kRp6PRTxAhbMqeY2y_scvA&t=4


Internet users of all political stripes are fighting back together. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition—led by Free Press—includes the Christian Coalition, MoveOn, Gun Owners of America, the ACLU, Craig from Craigslist, Free Press, small businesses, consumer advocates, Internet advocates, musicians such as Moby, R.E.M., Q-Tip, The Roots, Trent Reznor of NIN, the Indigo Girls, and the Dixie Chicks, and over 700 other organizations from around the country.




Also supporting Net Neutrality are high-tech pioneers like Google, Amazon, and eBay, as well as "fathers of the Internet" Vint Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee (the inventor of the www). We're part of something huge.



Thank you for all you do.

–Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team
Thursday, May 25th, 2006

P.S. You can find out more about naming MoveOn as a beneficiary in your will by clicking here:

http://civic.moveon.org/bequest/?id=7780-6968393-kRp6PRTxAhbMqeY2y_scvA&t=5

Source:
1. "Christian Coalition Announces Support for 'Net Neutrality' to Prevent Giant Phone and Cable Companies From Discriminating Against Web Sites," Christian Coalition, May 17, 2006
http://www.cc.org/content.cfm?id=329

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subscription Management:
This is a message from MoveOn.org Civic Action. To change your email address, update your contact info, or remove yourself (T.J. Bowman) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at:

-----------------------
-----------------------
-----------------------
Just a little message I got today while checking my mail.
This is good news that so many groups are taking arms for the 'cause, while AT&T and their like are trying to keep the news so far on the wayside that it's not mainstream information, when the internet's effectively become a mainstream component in our daily lives.
I think I can wing 35 dollars for this, I hope it helps.
I thought the issue would have been resolved by now, negatively, but hey this is news to my ears...
um... .... eyes.



1306/DD214

[platinum_pinoy]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html

It seems that Internet Neutrality got the shaft.

I don't know what this means to us avid internet users. Can someone explain the consequences for the bill getting rejected?

[Deathsythe]

Signed the petition and emailed a few days ago, actually got a response from Senator Clinton (outside of the regular auto reply though still likely canned). Schumer on the other didn't even have his standard auto response formatted right so I have little hope of hearing from him.

As for the bill being rejected it will prolly just under go some alterations to placate both parties and be resubmitted for vote.

[De4dEyE]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html

It seems that Internet Neutrality got the shaft.

I don't know what this means to us avid internet users. Can someone explain the consequences for the bill getting rejected?

Damn republicans....

[aragami]

I don't know what this means to us avid internet users. Can someone explain the consequences for the bill getting rejected?

Hopefully, like Deathsythe said, it will get reworked and not abandoned all together. However with 269 No voters, that's a hefty majority. So we may be looking at a two-tiered internet.

[AHVB]

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9588_22-6081882.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=zdnn
Titled: House rejects Net neutrality rules

The U.S. House of Representatives definitively rejected the concept of Net neutrality on Thursday, dealing a bitter blow to Internet companies like Amazon.com, eBay and Google that had engaged in a last-minute lobbying campaign to support it.

By a 269-152 vote that fell largely along party lines, the House Republican leadership mustered enough votes to reject a Democrat-backed amendment that would have enshrined stiff Net neutrality regulations into federal law and prevented broadband providers from treating some Internet sites differently from others.

Of the 421 House members who participated in the vote that took place around 6:30 p.m. PT, the vast majority of Net neutrality supporters were Democrats. Republicans represented most of the opposition.

The vote on the amendment (click for PDF) came after nearly a full day of debate on the topic, which prominent Democrats predicted would come to represent a turning point in the history of the Internet.

"The future Sergey Brins, the future Marc Andreessens, of Netscape and Google...are going to have to pay taxes" to broadband providers, said Rep. Ed Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat behind the Net neutrality amendment. This vote will change "the Internet for the rest of eternity," he warned.

At issue is a lengthy measure called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which a House committee approved in April. Its Republican backers, along with broadband providers such as Verizon and AT&T, say it has sufficient Net neutrality protections for consumers, and more extensive rules would discourage investment in wiring American homes with higher-speed connections.

The concept of network neutrality, which generally means that all Internet sites must be treated equally, has drawn a list of high-profile backers, from actress Alyssa Milano to Vint Cerf, one of the technical pioneers of the Internet. It's also led to a political rift between big Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo that back it--and telecom companies that oppose what they view as onerous new federal regulations.

As the final House vote drew closer, lobbyists and CEOs from both sides began stepping up the pressure. eBay CEO Meg Whitman e-mailed more than a million members, urging them to support the concept, and Google CEO Eric Schmidt on Wednesday called on his company's users to follow suit.

Defenders of the COPE Act, largely Republicans, dismissed worries about Net neutrality as fear mongering.

"I want a vibrant Internet just like they do," said Rep. Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican. "Our disagreement is about how to achieve that. They say let the government dictate it...I urge my colleagues to reject government regulation of the Internet."

The debate over Net neutrality had become more complicated after earlier versions of the COPE Act appeared to alter antitrust laws--in a way that would have deprived the House Judiciary Committee of some of its influence.

But in a last-minute compromise designed to placate key Republicans, the House leadership permitted an amendment (click for PDF) from Smith that would preserve the House Judiciary Committee's influence--without adding extensive Net neutrality mandates. That amendment to COPE was approved.

While the debate over Net neutrality started over whether broadband providers could block certain Web sites, it has moved on to whether they should be permitted to create a "fast lane" that could be reserved for video or other specialized content.

Prohibiting that is "not a road we want to go down, but that's what the Markey amendment would do," said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, a Tennessee Republican. "The next thing is going to be having a secretary of Internet Access (in the federal government)."