House Committee Vote Results: The Momentum Shifts in Our Favor
April 26th, 2006 by MattI watched the markup and the voting, and there was noticeable defensiveness among Congressmen on the wrong side of this. They are wrong, they know it, and they are ashamed. Now they know people are watching. So we didn’t win this vote, but this close margin was nonetheless a smack to the jaw of the insiders, and a clear victory for the people. Now the battle moves out of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and onto more favorable terrain.
As Sean-Paul said to me over email, “today was a victory as a few key players on the full committee changed their votes. Important action is required heading into the Senate but we have created significant momentum and the telco cartel is very afraid of us now.
This is not how they wanted it to go down. They wanted this amendment to fail quietly, so the Senate would not take it up. We changed the rules today. Great work.”
The fight is not over, and it will come back to the House. Contact your member and let them know how important this vote was to you.
April 26th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Awesome!
Here’s a letter from Senator Herb Kohl on this issue.
[quote]
Dear Mr. Hughes:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me with your
concerns about the Internet and net neutrality. I value the
correspondence I get from people back home in Wisconsin, and I
would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns.
As you may know, “net neutrality” refers to the concept
that Internet network operators should be neutral conduits of
content. In other words, phone, cable, and other companies that
operate Internet networks should not be permitted to favor or
prioritize some Internet traffic over other traffic.
Internet network operators have recently argued they
should be permitted to charge higher rates for some services than
others. This would give network operators the ability to sell
priority status to content providers. In exchange for a fee, certain
content would receive priority over general traffic and move from
point to point more quickly. Network operators claim these fees
would permit network upgrades and the creation of new services.
They also argue this tiered service option would benefit consumers
by managing Internet traffic more effectively and therefore
offering a higher speed Internet.
Internet content providers are generally opposed to any
attempt to undermine the current impartiality of the Internet.
These companies, which provide the “content” of the Internet,
believe net neutrality is crucial for the continued growth and
success of the Internet. Content providers argue that permitting
priority pricing on the Internet would restrict consumer choice and
activity and would fundamentally undermine the Internet.
I appreciate knowing your thoughts about net neutrality and
the Internet. You maybe interested to know that the Senate
Commerce Committee recently held a hearing entitled, “Net
Neutrality,” investigating the issue of nondiscrimination on the
Internet. Following these hearings, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)
introduced S. 2360, the “Internet Non-Discrimination Act,” which
aims to ensure a free and open Internet. This bill has been referred
to the Commerce Committee, of which I am not a member.
However, as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on
Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, you can be
sure that I am committed to developing policies that foster greater
competition among service and content providers and pass along a
wider service selection and lower rates to consumers.
Again, thank you for contacting me about this important
issue. I appreciate having the benefit of your views.
Sincerely,
Herb Kohl
U.S. Senator
[/quote]
April 26th, 2006 at 7:44 pm
you notice, however, that he said nothing about his view on the matter… only his commitment to “developing policies that foster greater
competition among service and content providers and pass along a
wider service selection and lower rates to consumers.” A lot of words- but not much substance– your basic politician’s answer…
April 26th, 2006 at 8:39 pm
[…] UPDATE (8:00 p.m.): To stay abreast of developments on this issue, bookmark Save the Internet.com. Despite losing the committee vote to preserve network neutrality today, they report that There’s a white hot firestorm on the issue on Capitol Hill. No one wants to see the telcos make a radical change to the internet and screw this medium up, except, well, the telcos. And now members of Congress are listening to us. The telcos have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position; we launched four days ago, and have closed a lot of ground. Over the next few months, as the public wakes up, we’ll close the rest of it. […]
April 26th, 2006 at 9:14 pm
Did anyone else notice that half of the Dems who voted for the Markey amendment turned around and voted “yes” on the final, unamended, net-neutrality-toxic bill? Do they all get to keep their green dots?
April 27th, 2006 at 2:19 am
I have a question.
Does the elimination of Network Neutrality eliminate the Common Carrier liability protection that ISPs normally receive?
If an ISP gives preference to content from one provider over another, doesn’t that make the ISP legally liable for content from that preferred provider?
April 27th, 2006 at 9:22 am
[…] Save the Internet.com, House Committee Vote Results: The Momentum Shifts in Our Favor Ok, so the vote on the Markey amendment to protect the internet has happened, and it was voted down, 34-22. That is a big deal. It’s too bad we lost the vote, but we expected that loss. What we did not expected was the narrow margin. By way of comparison, the subcommittee vote was 23-8, which means we should have gotten blown out of the water. […]
April 27th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
[…] The net neutrality idea was voted down, but Matt at Savetheinternet.com comments that this was a partial victory – that several Congresspersons changed their votes and that the movement is clearly being noticed on Capitol Hill: Ok, so the vote on the Markey amendment to protect the internet has happened, and it was voted down, 34-22. That is a big deal. It’s too bad we lost the vote, but we expected that loss. What we did not expected was the narrow margin. By way of comparison, the subcommittee vote was 23-8, which means we should have gotten blown out of the water. We did not. All four targeted Dems by McJoan on Daily Kos flipped to our side, and many of the Congressmen both for and against this campaign mentioned the blogs and angry constituents.There’s a white hot firestorm on the issue on Capitol Hill. No one wants to see the telcos make a radical change to the internet and screw this medium up, except, well, the telcos. And now members of Congress are listening to us. The telcos have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position; we launched four days ago, and have closed a lot of ground. Over the next few months, as the public wakes up, we’ll close the rest of it. […]
April 27th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
[…] Matt at SaveTheInternet posts an update: Ok, so the vote on the Markey amendment to protect the internet has happened, and it was voted down, 34-22. That is a big deal. It’s too bad we lost the vote, but we expected that loss. What we did not expected was the narrow margin. By way of comparison, the subcommittee vote was 23-8, which means we should have gotten blown out of the water. We did not. All four targeted Dems by McJoan on Daily Kos flipped to our side, and many of the Congressmen both for and against this campaign mentioned the blogs and angry constituents.There’s a white hot firestorm on the issue on Capitol Hill. No one wants to see the telcos make a radical change to the internet and screw this medium up, except, well, the telcos. And now members of Congress are listening to us. The telcos have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and many years lobbying for their position; we launched four days ago, and have closed a lot of ground. Over the next few months, as the public wakes up, we’ll close the rest of it. […]
April 27th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
I called Bobby Rush’s office today to voice my surprise that he voted against the Net Neutrality amendment, but did vote for the bill without it. In effect, he sold out.
The response I received was even more surprising. The staffer I spoke with said that perhaps I didn’t understand or read the bill fully, but that this was being done because of overwhelming pressure from Rush’s constituency to lower cable prices.
Lower cable prices?
This stance is being justified as being in response to grassroots community voices. The political justification is that communities demand lower cable prices, and that this will (somehow) ensure that.
So I asked how this guarantees lower cable prices, and pointed out that Comcast VOIP service currently costs ~$40 or $50 a month, while Sunrocket costs $16 (several other small VOIP carriers have competitive pricing, up to Vonage at $25) with many more features than Comcast. I know this personally, because my landlord has Comcast VOIP downstairs and I have Sunrocket.
Allowing Comcast to kill Sunrocket services over its system helps me how? Forcing Sunrocket to pay Comcast for the privilege of reaching me is going to increase Sunrocket’s pricing. Does it guarantee that Comcast will lower its pricing dramatically as a result?
How does SBC guarantee that their prices will fall if Google is forced to pay them?
He had no answer for this.
Their justification is overwhelming public response demanding lower cable costs. We need to call them on this. People need to call their representatives, over and over, and tell them that this is public knowledge…they’re selling out, and everyone’s going to know about it. If this doesn’t happen, I’m not sure how we’re going to save the internet.
Dave.