House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet
June 9th, 2006 by tkarrLast night’s House vote against an amendment that would make Net Neutrality enforceable is the result of swarming lobbyists and a multi-million-dollar media campaign by telephone companies that want Congress to hand them control of the Internet.
The fight now moves to the Senate, where there is stronger bi-partisan support for a bill — put forth by Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-North Dakota) — that would protect our Internet freedom from AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth.
Here are some comments from SavetheInternet.com Coalition members.
Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst of the Consumers Union:
Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, today’s vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation.
Ben Scott, policty director of Free Press:
The American public favors an open and neutral Internet and does not want gatekeepers taxing innovation and throttling the free market. The House has seriously undermined access to information and democratic communication. Despite the revisionist history propagated by the telcos and their lobbyists, until last year, the Internet had always been a neutral network. It is the central reason for its overwhelming success. This issue is not about whether or not the government will regulate the Internet. It’s about whether consumers or cable and phone companies will decide what services and content are available on the Net.
Mark Cooper, director of research at Consumers Federation of America:
This is not Google vs. AT&T. CFA has been battling to keep the phone companies from putting tollbooths on the Internet since the early 1980’s, but now every business and every consumer that uses the Internet has a dog in the fight for Internet Freedom. This coalition will continue to grow, millions of Americans will add their voices, and Congress will not escape the roar of public opinion until Congress passes enforceable net neutrality.
Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge:
The House has rushed to pass HR 5252 at the urging of the telephone and cable companies, who feared the growing public support for an enforceable net neutrality law…. Today’s Internet, which gives consumers control over what applications, services and content they want to access, will be replaced by an Internet that looks like a cable system — where network providers determine who gets on and at what price.
Our grass-roots coalition includes more than 720 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 800,000 individuals who have rallied in support of net neutrality at www.savetheinternet.com. The coalition is left and right, public and private, commercial and noncommercial.
Supporters of net neutrality include the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP, ACLU, and every major consumer group in the nation. It includes the founders of the Internet and hundreds of companies that do business online.
The battle for Net Neutrality - or Internet freedom - has significantly stronger bipartisan support in the Senate. Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced the “Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006″ that enjoys the strong support from the SaveTheInternet coalition.
Bi-partisanship will carry the day. A bi-partisan Net Neutrality bill in the House Judiciary won handily only two weeks ago. As we look to the Senate, our prospects are strong.
Senators can expect to hear from their constituents on their responsibility to protect Net Neutrality and we will be watching closely to make sure they listen.
June 9th, 2006 at 11:34 am
I watched congress on Cspan and was stunned by the general ennui of the majority attitude regarding the internet. The main focus seemed to be on providing more diverse cable programming…necessary, but hardly world shaking.
Clearly they do not seem to understand that the internet is the greatest collaborative masterpiece ever given to the world by humans. it is the largest library of every culture’s arts and sciences; the biggest market for free enterprise offering anyone a chance to sell their wares; and perhaps most important to a people who say they want to spread democracy to all people, the internet offers the greatest form of free speech created since the printing press. It is one of the wonders of the modern world and has the potential to bring the planet together to create peace, prosperity and beauty.
How can we allow a few companies, with the corporate tunnel vision of quick profits for a few, stifle this unprecedented creation for future generations?
June 9th, 2006 at 11:35 am
[…] The House of Representatives failed to include a network neutrality amendment in the communications bill passed last night. You want your rep to have voted Yea on this vote and Nay on this one. There’s another bill in the Senate, you can call your Senators and tell them to support the bill. […]
June 9th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
This is just another nail in the coffin for the american people and the whole world for that matter! These bastards are just more shills for the illuminati . They will not stop until we are all controlled with no voice and no truth to be heard. This corruption has to STOP! When are we going to say ENOUGH!! Maybe people will finally wake up when the internet is finally taken away. The internet is the one thing that is shared equally for the wealthy and the not so wealthy. This is happening because our money system is totally illegal!! The Federal Reserve needs to be STOPPED! If we had a honest money system these corporations would not be able to take advantage of people the way they do! WAKE UP PEOPLE BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!!! WE NEED TO TAKE BACK OUR RIGHTS TO A LEGAL MONEY SYSTEM!!! THIS IS WHY MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL IT IS CONTROLLED BY THE BANKERS AND NOT BY THE PEOLPE!!!!
June 9th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
If you’d like to see the appalling roll call vote on this bill, here is the link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2006-241
Here in Congressional District 36 in California, Jane Harman, who just won the primary for the race in November, voted in favor of this bill.
Where is our representation?
June 9th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
I agree with you Kelly..I was listening to democracynow.org this morning about the House vote on this issue. Anthony Riddle made a comment that hit the home run. Basically what is all boils down to is MONEY, POWER, CONTROL! Adding the power of money to politics is a recipe for total corruption of our democracy which has and will continue to happen as we stand around and watch our constitutional rights being plucked away from us one by one!!!!!!!!!!! If people were as razzled about COPE as the immigrants were about the legislation the threatened them, perhaps our demonstrations would be two, three, four times larger. I don’t understand why the people DO NOTHING and let our government ignore our wishes, ignore the people who put them in office, and worse of all IGNORE OUR CONSTITUTION! Can’t people put two and two together and know the telecom companies handed over all their data to the government who in return promised them the passage of COPE!
June 9th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
HELLO ALL.
When will people quit voting against their own best interests? http://www.savetheinternet.com did a wonderful job of creating a grassroots movement YET to no effect. WHY? because special interests and lobby groups control what legislation is passed.
WAKE UP If we don’t start making some changes in this country the country as we know it, as we love it, is lost. If you’re not registered to vote-register. If you don’t vote in elections than you will get the world you deserve.
I am so frustrated by the “sheep” and ‘herd’ mentality in this country. When a real leader is running for office–they don’t get the votes. When a person running for office who has money or says what voters want to hear they get elected.
We’ve got some hard choices facing us in the next 10-15 years…healthcare, medicare, SS, etceteras. and apathy and ignorance will get middle america exactly what it has coming–nothing.
If any good can come out of this I hope that at least a small portion of those on this site begin to take note and say we’re not going to take it anymore. …I may retain hope–but I’ll not hold my breath.
Another disappointing day for Americans & a great day for corporate american.
June 9th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
TO ALL PEOPLE OF THIS NATION! Invision our country, the United States of America, the land of freedom and opportunity, being a country where the images we see from Iraq, are here all around us. Imagine holding our children, grandchildren, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters or our grandparent’s limp bodies in our arms…..and no one gives a damn and there will be no one held accountable for their murders. America Wake Up!
June 9th, 2006 at 2:28 pm
We must now hope that the Senate is more reasonable. Do not stop. Keep sending letters, emails, phone calls, everything. Let them know that we will not put up with this, and some of the most powerful organizations are behind us as well.
Trust me, if this goes through, somehow I doubt they will want thousands upon thousands of very angry internet nerds on their front door.
June 9th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
wait..i think im confused..
im reading http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/1882
it has a summary of the bill that was just passed.. “This bill, now H.R. 5252…provides the FCC with authority to ensure Net Neutrality…” etc.
then it says:
“* Clarify the FCC authority to prevent Internet service providers from blocking or degrading any content or applications delivered over the public Internet.”
now, this is the bill they voted FOR, isnt it? maybe im confused and am reading soemthing wrong, or i missed something, but..isnt that what we want? isn’t net neutrality what we’re all asking for?
the bill passed on a 321 - 101 vote
i think im confused, can someone please explain what im missing here?
June 9th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
Although you have noble intentions, you guys aren’t going to have much luck with this campaign. Even if the Senate votes for this net neutrality bill, George W. Bush will quickly shoot it down with a veto.
In this increasingly plutocratic country, the only way you can really make an impact is by using commerce as a weapon. So, Verizon and its lackeys want to split up the internet with a two tier system, where the companies that don’t pay them have their sites slowed down to slug-like speeds? Fair enough.
The telcos and cable companies may control internet access, but it’s the tech industry that gives people a reason to use it. And if they band together as an organization and refuse to pay Verizon’s protection money, a two tiered internet system simply cannot work. Imagine an internet service where all the sites you WANT to visit, including Microsoft, eBay, and Google, are hobbled. Who would want to use it? Nobody, that’s who.
People don’t visit the internet to check out the next grease-laden burger from McDonald’s, or to learn more about the fast, effective cleaning action of Formula 409. They don’t want thinly disguised commercials… they want information. They want content. They want software for their computers, and objective reviews of the latest products. Only the content providers can offer this, not the telcos or the cable companies.
When that content is restricted or withheld entirely from an internet service provider, that ISP can only wither and die. The telcos and cable companies claim that it’s their right to deliver content in any way they choose. By the same standard, it’s the right of the content providers to withhold it.
No more begging Congress for rights we should already have by default. No more crossing our fingers and hoping that the telcos and cable monopolies will serve the public’s best interests. It’s time to fight dirty, and it’s time to WIN. If the tech industry stands against Verizon, refusing to pay for preferred service and even blacking out their sites in protest, the idea of a two tiered internet service will quickly crumble.
JR
June 9th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
[…] The US House of Representatives voted down an amendment to protect net neutrality. (More…) […]
June 9th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
William Bennett said:
“A huge pack of lies, as nobody wants to censor your news.”
Suuure they don’t. Like AOL didn’t block E-mails referring to a protest site. Like Telus Canada didn’t block access to union sites. Like the traditional television and radio media don’t reserve free speech solely for their own actors and artists. Sure thing, Mr. Fat Cat Republican. You’ve got our best interests at heart. And we should entrust our rights to the tender mercies of the telcos, who sold our phone conversations to the NSA, annoy us with calls to change our service in the middle of dinner, and are chomping at the bit to block access to Skype and other voice IP services.
We’ll remember your phony promises about not censoring the Internet, so we can throw it back in your face the moment it happens (and it WILL, since the telcos are already using compelled speech as a justification for their own impending censorship).
Enjoy your dirty Verizon money. Sure is more important to fill your pockets with cash than to protect the free speech that this country was founded upon, isn’t it? George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would be ashamed of you.
JR
June 9th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
I’m trying to educate myself on this apparently important issue, but I’m having trouble finding some of the data that I need. Specifically, I’m having a hard time finding historical support for the proposition that making people pay different amounts of money for different levels of service always causes the sky to fall.
When I looked into phone service, for example, I found the VoIP is cheaper but has a lower quality of service, does not offer E911 at the same level as wireline, and has more dropped calls. However, if I’m willing to pay more for phone service, I can get those features.
Likewise, when I went to the bookstore, I found that I could get more books by better authors by paying more money. At Amazon, I can get the books faster by paying more for shipping.
The Wall Street Journal seems to cost more than the free weekly newspaper available around here, but it has more content, does more in-depth analysis, and so forth.
So the pattern seems to be that when I pay money for something, I get more than when I don’t pay money for something. It’s not universal, but it’s generally true. Against that background, I’m trying to figure out how to solve my problem. My problem is that I want faster net access, much faster, a helluva a lot faster, but if I keep taking net access on an undifferentiated basis, I can’t figure out how to motivate the various market actors to provide what I want and I can’t figure out how they would pay for it even if they wanted to make me happy, which I sometimes suspect that they do not.
I appreciate any help that you care to offer.
June 9th, 2006 at 6:13 pm
Sure thing, man. Right now, there is little to no competition in the broadband internet market… you’re either stuck with the bloated cable company, or the bloated telephone company. There’s been little push for them to improve their service or lower their prices, because they’ve got the market by the happy sack. If you don’t like the services they provide, you have to settle for a granny dial-up connection that runs as slow as molasses. There are no other alternatives, because the telcos and cable companies fight hard to ensure that the government doesn’t offer its own service, and won’t let other competitors take root.
There’s no motivation for the telcos or cable companies to provide superior service. None at all. They’ll do what they always do, offering the bare minimum of service while finding even more ways to wring money out of their customers. Internet service will remain at $50 a month, plus it will be hobbled thanks to the two-tier scheme, plus there will be censorship because of the cable companies’ constant whining about compelled speech (on a UTILITY? Come on. What’s next, cutting off my water supply because I didn’t use the right shampoo?!). This is not a victory for the consumer by any stretch of the imagination. The defeat of net neutrality will only harm Internet users and the free speech they once enjoyed.
JR
June 9th, 2006 at 6:57 pm
I find it amazing that these companies are willing to throw away our freedom so that they can merely make more money. This just clarifies the fact that they dont care about their consumers, because they obviously dont care what their consumers’ opinions.
What, will the internet turn into a major advertisement, where we pay to go online, be directed on what to buy, and where? This sure does sound like it, and I think its a load of crap.
People who run small businesses via the internet will be set into extinction, and the internet will be ruled by the greedy, filthy, tyrants that want to dictate the internet, the major companies like AT&T and so on.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Has there been any news about Google’s progress in creating its own broadband service? They’d better get crackin’, because at the rate things are going, the telcos will probably make them mysteriously vanish from the Internet the moment they get the opportunity.
JR
June 9th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
[…] House Ignores Public, Sells out the Internet - June 9th, 2006 by tkarr […]
June 10th, 2006 at 12:00 am
[…] A commenter on the Save the Internet Blog said it much better than I ever could (thank you, Sepod!): I watched congress on Cspan and was stunned by the general ennui of the majority attitude regarding the internet. The main focus seemed to be on providing more diverse cable programming…necessary, but hardly world shaking. Clearly they do not seem to understand that the internet is the greatest collaborative masterpiece ever given to the world by humans. it is the largest library of every culture’s arts and sciences; the biggest market for free enterprise offering anyone a chance to sell their wares; and perhaps most important to a people who say they want to spread democracy to all people, the internet offers the greatest form of free speech created since the printing press. It is one of the wonders of the modern world and has the potential to bring the planet together to create peace, prosperity and beauty. How can we allow a few companies, with the corporate tunnel vision of quick profits for a few, stifle this unprecedented creation for future generations? […]
June 10th, 2006 at 12:23 am
[…] The House ignores the public, sells out the internet> Posted by Shay Filed in Technology, Internet, News Rate this post: | […]
June 10th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
[…] Happy with the last nights rejection of Net Neutrality in the House of Representatives, Telecom companies will soon be giving a generous gift to its consumers, called ‘Bit caps’. They have promised themselves to give this gift to their consumers now or little later but definitely. This time, they mean it. People, that rejected the Net Neutrality, do you know what is in the making and what can be expected from these greedy Telcos? Here you go.One tiny step. Bit caps. […]
June 10th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
XYZZY, say for example you go to the gas station every day after work. They have a fountain drink machine that offers any size cup for $0.89. You always get the largest because there is no logical reason to get the small when you can drink the entire large and do not have to pay extra for it. Then one day you come in and the price of the large has spiked because the shipping company that delivers the soda decided to charge an extra fee. Then they decide to add an extra fee for each state they cross while shipping it. Pretty soon you have a $5.00 soda. There had previously been a law preventing this but its time had run out.
Anyway, the point of that terrible analogy is that you do not always get more just because you pay for it. If something has cost the same price since being introduced suddenly changes, shouldn’t you ask why? You can be sure there are alternative motives involved when everything is working fine and they decide to drastically change the functionality of they way something millions of people use per day. Why fix it if it isn’t broken?
June 10th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Everyone, I have taken down my site temporarily and replaced it with an “error 666″ message (because the threat is patently evil IMHO). I urge everyone who runs a small website or blog to try the same thing - or a variation of it. I think more people will get the point when it is DEMONSTRATED. My example is Tampa Rail - a website/blog devoted to covering mass transit development in Tampa.
June 10th, 2006 at 7:00 pm
Congress thinks the best for people. We should trust congress.
Then please let me bring a proposal similar to the COPE bill without network neutrality, to better our lives :
——————–
Senate should approve a bill to allow for privatization of defence
Government controlled military should be disbanded. The Companies should be able to go for, and win defence contracts for long periods of time, allowing them to produce/purchase weapons, recruit and train soldiers, do planning, maintain staff, respond to local and international threats as situations require. There should be no limit to how many such small defence divisions/commands could be created, in order to boost competition.
Also, “Hands off the military” - government should not regulate defence. Government regulation is bad for free market, for business. Free market will adjust and regulate defence better. If some business running a local defence force rebels and creates a local dictatorship, people will be able to choose another ‘provider’ of defence services then. If the rebels do not let people do that, another defence force could be called in to remedy the situation - no problem.
Some advantages of the privatized military are :
Better performance - Government is a bulky instutition. It is bureucratic. Taxes melt away in this structure. By privatizing the army, we will be able to optimally channel taxpayer money. That will allow us to reduce taxes around $30 per month per citizen or more. Local defence forces will be more efficient in performing tasks.
Competition and innovation - In a free market, defence and its business will thrive. Competition will drive prices low, also innovation will be much more abundant in matters defence.
Right to choose : The citizens will ve able to choose what company defends them. This way they will be better served.
Scalable ! : Free market will be much more efficient in adjusting what size and kind of military is needed where, so that it will be scalable to an extent beyond imagination.
Fire and forget : You dont need to do nothing as a citizen. Your local defence force will take care of all things for you. You just need to continue on your responsibilities… Move along, citizen. There is nothing to see here.
—————————-
Of course, in a later date, some defence corporation ceo might come up and say “I have paid for this, this is my army. Im a jerk if i let them use my army freely. I have the right to take taxes from the local population, on top of the pay i get from the government, it is a free market, hands off the military” - but, oh well. It is a free market after all and they have paid for the military equipment. Also, regulation is bad.
Also it might be so that, when a local defence contractor is awarded a contract for 50 years, there might be no chance for the locals to change their defence company, legally, and they might be stuck with the company whatever they do. But oh. Its a legal right. Also, regulation is bad.
There is the slight possibility that some defence conglomerate would slowly rebel and take on the government for itself, however we should trust our businesses, for they are big businesses and it is a free market, and government regulation is bad.
I implore you all to support this bill that will revolutionize the issue of defence once and for all, for the betterment of all nation.
June 10th, 2006 at 7:08 pm
All in my above post are my own words. Anyone can use it to make a point and prove the stupor of cope without net neutrality to anyone, anywhere, anytime, by any means. Please do so. Stupor can be met only with stupor.
June 10th, 2006 at 8:10 pm
Tdave’s got a pretty good idea. I propose that April 2nd be Internet Blackout day… it will have a more profound effect because on April 1st, most web sites are too obsessed with April Fools jokes to offer any important information. Rendering the internet useless for two straight days will really drive home the point that the Internet has been hijacked by Verizon and other corporations.
I would also suggest that Internet users concerned with their freedom should subscribe to a second dial-up account, to make sure that their favorite sites aren’t being blotted out of existance by the telcos and cable companies. I suspect that in five years, an underground “counternet” will be the only way to access information like this.
JR
June 10th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
[…] You know, I’ve read Save the Internet, and I’m finding it very, very difficult to believe that their predictions about the potential effects of the fact that the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 without the Net Neutrality Amendment attached. Even without having ever read any of the arguments against the amendment, I keep having Deja Vu every time I read anything on that site. […]
June 10th, 2006 at 11:07 pm
[…] Read More This entry is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave a Reply […]
June 11th, 2006 at 12:27 am
When you contact your senator tell them this: Without Net Neutrality you (your senator) may find your own constituent service and/or campaign web site charged for every visitor. The more popular you, and your website become - the more it will cost you to reach your voters and offer valuable citizen centric services. Does COPE provide funds to cover increased viewers on senate.gov? Does your campaign finance director have plans for paying for your extra hits when you put your campaign website url in all of your ads? If you are unable to use the web to deliver timely service do you have a field office budget that can handle the increased phone call (read: bandwidth) volume your office will have to handle?
If you fail in delivering services to your constituents they will not vote for you again. No amount of advertising money can overcome that.
Keep your doors open by keeping the Internet open.
Thank you.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:35 am
I’m concerned that you’re fighting very hard to get something that you don’t want. I’m sure that you’re fighting very hard to get something that I don’t want, which is to preserve the status quo.
Let’s start with a summary of where we are. In the US, broadband is defined as connections at 200 kbits/sec or higher. (Third Report, Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunicatyions Capability to all Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, paras 7 & 9 (2002)). By contrast, the average high-speed connectinon in South Korea is 8 Mbits/sec (John Borland & Michael Kanellos, Broadband: How South Korea Leads the Way, CNET News.com, July 28, 2004, available at insight.zdnet.co.uk/communications/broadband/0,39020424,39162027,00.htm). This is not a state of affairs that any of us has an interest in continuing. If part of the answer is differential pricing for differential service then I’m all in favor. So should you be.
Second, if you’re going to use big words, understand what they mean. Ben Scott, Policy Director of Free Press says, “until last year, the Internet had always been a neutral network.” That’s obviously wrong. As Tim Wu points out, there is no such thing as a neutral network. (Tim Wu, Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination, 2 J. Telecomm. & High Tech L. 141 (2003)). The underlying protocols of the internet are packet switched with relatively small packet sizes, which is a fine way to send email but a poor way to stream video in real-time. It enables voice communications in the form of VoIP, but lacks the reliability and quality of the circuit-switched public switched telephone network. So it discriminates in favor of email and VoIP and against real-time streaming video and high-reliability voice. This is nothing more than the trivial fact known to all engineers everywhere that engineering choices favor some things and harm others.
So you’re not going to get a neutral network. The network is going to exist in some form, and every form is going to be beneficial to some and harmful to others. It’s fun to rail against Big Evil Corporations, especially in this forum in which you’re preaching to the choir and you’re all-but-guaranteed to hear supporting noise about how right you are to oppose Big Evil, but now it’s time for you to do some useful work. Given that you’re not going to get a truly neutral network, not least because it’s impossible (Wu), get off your high horse and state exactly what you want, who you want to help, who you’re willing to hurt, and justify your decision.
And if you’re not going to do that, at least state a definition of the words you’re using. Law of physics be damned, at least state what you think net neutrality could possibly mean. Does it mean that everyone pays the same for network access? Not likely. Not even this crowd is going to argue that I should pay the same for my 1 mbit connection as Google pays for its gigabit or terabit access. But wait - if you abandon that argument then you’re already conceding that there are different levels of service and that different levels of service may come with different charges. That’s a perfectly reasonable position, the only reasonable position as far as I can tell, but then whence your idea of net neutrality? You’re griped that some will pay more than others, but you surely recognize the infeasibility of having me pay the same as Google pays and the unreasonableness of them paying the same as I pay for net access. Having agreed that there will be a price differential, having agreed that the different pricing gets me a different level of quality than Google, what’s left to argue about?
It turns out that there are answers to those questions, but it’s not obvious that most of the posters on this site know what they are, or are even aware of the questions, or of the questions to which the answers give rise. (For a long list of questions and a shorter list of answers, I commend to you Nuechterlein and Weiser’s book Digital Crossroads: American Telecommunications Policy in the Internet Age.)
Short form: Google is going to pay more for its large-business net access than I do for my personal net access or that my small business pays for its small-business net access. If that’s not OK, should my internet bill rise to the level of Google’s or should theirs fall to the 50/month that I pay?
If you want to allow multiple internet access options and products for different prices, how are you going to maintain neutrality in the face of different options that are each tailored to favor one type of application over another? If you don’t want non-neutrality in the form of many different net access products/plans at different price points then you are arguiing for few (or one) access option; then how do you get the innovations that come from the availability of a flexible set of access options and varying price points?
June 11th, 2006 at 1:30 am
xyzzy (what a wonderful handle) missed the point. JUST TAKE ACTION. TELL YOUR SENATORS TO VOTE WITH YOU!
June 11th, 2006 at 1:59 am
But I don’t know what to tell my senators to do. I don’t want them to vote for net neutrality without knowing what it means. I don’t want them to vote for a net neutrality that means that everyone pays the same for net access because I can’t afford to pay what Google pays and the telcos can’t survive if Google pays what I pay. I don’t want them to vote for a net neutrality that requires that the net be technically neutral towards all apps because I want providers to be able to tune parts of the net to some apps, to provide pseudo-circuits to VoIP or immense packet sizes to immense video downloads for example.
On the other hand, I don’t want them to vote for (or fail to vote against) proposals that would allow telcos to use price differentiation to crush competition.
But most of all, I don’t want them to vote for a system in which Congress gets involved in a lot of details. If there’s anything we learned from the Telecomm Act of 1996, it was that lots of things that Congress does on technically complex subjects is abjectly stupid. The Title I/Title II/Title IV (discretionary regulation, common carrier, cable TV) stovepiping that gave rise to extremely unhelpful market distortion is a decent example of Congressional short-sightedness. We learned from the complete hash that they made of intercarrier compensation (see, e.g., 47 USC section 251(b)(5) (apparently establishing a duty on telcos to create a reasonable intercarrier compensation scheme but actually just creating ambiguity out of a fear of angering various powerful interest groups)) that they can’t even be trusted to create reasonable guidelines. So mostly what I want is Congressional silence and substantial delegation to people who actually know something about the topic, perhaps the staff experts at the FCC but maybe instead a body that is directly responsible to the voters. Not sure.
So, although I would love to help and I would like nothing better than to tell my elected representative how to go on this one, I haven’t seen any really bright ideas. In particular, “just take action” seems unhelpful without knowing what a really smart action might be. “Tell your senators to vote with you” is likewise unhelpful until I figure out how to vote to motivate providers to supply a range of services to meet a wide variety of unpredictable needs at a reasonable cost with minimal Congressional involvement. Suggestions welcome.
June 11th, 2006 at 2:40 am
wu’s explanation of net neutrality (from xyzzy’s post: see above) doesn’t apply here– from an engineering/tech standpoint, i’m sure he’s correct. but that’s not what we’re debating here– what i understand of this bill:
it doesn’t affect the consumer from an economic point, ie-pay more for better service/faster connection. i’m sure no one would really feel threatened by that–
what it does affect are the thousands of online business, newsites, blogs– the content side of the internet– which have to pay more to have their content delivered to you, the viewer, at faster rate. thus, the two-tiered system. a company can pay a higher fee to have their website download faster, perform flawlessly, reach those trying to access it. if a company (or blogger or whoever) won’t pay the higher charge, people trying to access the site will have a harder time viewing the content, if able to access the site at all.
in this respect, smaller online businesses, websites, etc…who can’t afford to pay are left out– only corporations will be able to afford this–
the wonderful thing about net neutrality is that every site is treated the same, as in i can explore obscure blogs just as easily as look at a disney site– the internet treats all content (not Wu’s definition) equally– remember that little shop you saw in the back country road in vermont and you loved their sweaters? …and they have a website.. and ordering is easy? not so if this bill passes…who would be able to afford it?
so, think about what news will be readily available– CNN or media matters–
you get the gist–
if i have gotten this wrong, please inform me– like mercy1313 above, i was a bit confused about the bill also– but i think, mercy1313, like so many other bills introduced, the title is a spin that cloaks the actual intent — and i’m sure there are lots of other sneaky items in there– remember–
the press is free to those who acutally own one– menken
right now, we all own the internet– if this passes, big media all over again– they’ll supress ’subversive content’–
did i get this right?
June 11th, 2006 at 5:32 am
I suggest that the people in Republican congressman Fred Upton’s district find some companies that gave money to his campaign and boycott them until Mr. Upton includes NET NEUTRALITY in the legislation. I say nothing appears more motivating than having one of his friends suffering a withering boycott to get Mr. Upton to include such net neautrality language into the bill.
The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States of America
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liberaldemocraticpartyusa/
http://groups.myspace.com/liberaldemocraticpartyoftheunitedstatesofamerica
June 11th, 2006 at 8:43 am
The main reason this thing is happening is that the telcos OVERSOLD their bandwidth capacity in order to get more profits.
Lets see, you sell 512 kbit/sec dsl to clients. You discover that, only maybe 5-10% of them continually use their full bandwith. So you are under your peak capacity almost 90% of the time. Underutilized capacity.
What do you do ? you oversell. You sell to more people, the same bandwidth, until you have 50% or so capacity.
But now people, because of videos, are using their capacity to the fullest.
And the telcos find that, with the equipment at hand, they will not be able to meet the OVERSOLD demand they have been selling out.
What do they do ? They do not want to invest their own money to remedy the situation.
Heres the solution : toll the websites too. So, that way you will be not only resolving your situation, but reaping in extra cash. Controlling the internet is a side booty.
This is a BUSINESS MALPRACTICE. If they oversold, this is THEIR fault.
Nowhere in world history such blatant blunder as to passing a law to fix someone’s faulty business plan, by TOLLING SOMETHING TWICE has been seen, in order to fix someone’s own mess.
I have seen comments here, way beyond containing any logic in themselves in order for me to reply, probably by million-dollar paid lobbyists in telco employ.
People who do not understand how internet got to this point, with phletora of free service, content, amenities entertainment, things that are beyond count - should not even comment about the situation.
MANY services (almost 70% of the web) fuel their own engine by advertising. And these advertising pays upstream bandwidth (hosting) costs for these services, so that they may continue to broadcast.
Note that, advertising is not a great boon of income on the net. It is just normal for a site that gets 500 000 unique visitors a month reap around $500-600 a month. Note that, at least $250 of this amount will be needed to maintain the server for the site to function on. The rest $250 would be a kind of ‘profit’ for the service.
Now, as it stands with this UTTERLY CLUELESS bill, this service will have to pay ALL AND EVERY ISP a different BANDWIDTH fee.
As its impossible for such a limited income to meet ALL isp’s demands, rationally most isps will not be getting paid for such site’s traffic, hence they will be delaying them as per the law, prioritizing paid traffic.
THIS AFFECTS THE END CONSUMER ! They wont be able to reach out to free content and service that is residing at 60% of the internet, FLAT.
This is way bigger a price than paying an extra $20 for cable tv bill. Because they will be having to PAY to get these services elsewhere.
The small non-profit organisations, small educational, entertainment sites, hobby sites, small garage band sites, people’s online resumes, published research papers and more WILL BE INVISIBLE TO THE END CONSUMER.
And this is despite THE ACCESS WAS PAID FOR BY THE END CONSUMER ! And this is due to ISP WANTING TO GET PAID !!! TWICE !!! FOR A TRAFFIC !!!!
This is some stupid logic, UNHEARD of ever before.
Also, it will utterly demolish many business FIELDS. Note that, im not saying businesses, im telling about whole branches of IT.
First, the web hosting industry will be the one to go to bust.
If a site opened anew will not be able to reach to people, or its traffic will require payment to isps so that it will be utterly unprofitable to operate, there is no point in erecting up sites. There is no point in registering domain names.
As people will not be opening up sites, web hosting, domain industries will crash down, bringing the nasdaq deeper. I dont need to tell you what will this plunge in itself, will do.
Not only to mention the web development & programming business. As there will not be a demand for these services, we will have whole lot of educated professionals and big businesses without a job, unemployed.
And all these is only for TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES TO MAKE MORE PROFITS.
The internet, the biggest revolution in favor of the entire civilization since the french revolution, the industrial revolution, will be made into just a CABLE TV, crashing entire industries, creating HORDES of educated professionals, and KILLING INNOVATION AND EXPANSION in economy.
No more googles, no more yahoos. Yes.
Any budding idea that starts to get much users & traffic, will be bogged down AS THEY WONT BE ABLE TO PAY AT&T FOR THE INCREASING TRAFFIC.
Just think what would our life look like if we did not have google and the innovation it did for web search. It was IMPOSSIBLE finding someting in altavista unless you searched for TWO HOURS. Now we do NOT look further than 1 page in google results to find what we are looking for.
All these stuff, for only AT&T doing more profit.
CRASHING ENTIRE INDUSTRIES AND LEAVING HORDES OF EDUCATED PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED is just for AT&T and a small number of firms gaining more profits, and maybe hiring an additional 500 people each.
If you STILL accept the COPE without net neutrality bill as logical, then i would like to present one more bill that will “better our lives, foster innovation and business in a free market environment”, with the logic employed in COPE :
We need to privatize TRAFFIC LIGHTS piecemeal. Every traffic light at every junction should be contracted to the highest bidding contractor. These contractors should be able to decide HOW the traffic flows, and they should be able to SET PASSAGE TOLLS at each traffic light, junction SEPERATELY.
And in a free market environment, unregulated of course.
They should have the right to PRIORITIZE traffic for the HIGHEST payer, the less paying drivers should HAVE TO WAIT until the most paying, prioritized traffic have passed from the junction. If need be, undefinitely.
This is would be a whole set of new innovation of business, it would foster free market economy, and it would be good for all americans.
Old ladies, young lads in will have to wait in their cars, as they do not have the cash to pay at every junction (just like their websites under cope). but hey, its a free market. Middle class citizens will be arriving home from work much, much late, as they cant afford to pay at every junction, but hey, at least WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY BOTTLENECK IN JUNCTIONS.
This is what COPE without Network Neutrality is.
And, i must admit that, i perceive whoever defends COPE without Network Neutrality, an enemy of the people. ‘The People’ being ‘The People’ from the declaration of independence.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
You forgot to mention how lack of statutorily enforced net neutrality will bring about the Apocalypse. Other than that, I think you’ve about covered it.
(I glanced back over my previous posts and I see that I am, um… verbose? chatty? overly talkative? Sorry about that. I’m going to try to keep this short, but I hope that you will find it informative.)
A few people have wanted to view the text of the bill itself. You can find it at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:3:./temp/~c109V2qcuR::
What Congress says on this subject will have surprisingly minimal impact. Congress will pass some bill containing some general principles, but mostly containing vague phrases that reflect the ignorance of our elected officials of all things technical or scientific. The bill will also avoid saying things that enrage powerful interests.
The most important sentence in the bill for you and for the telcos is Section 201, which adds 47 USC 715 as follows:
/=================
(a) Authority- The [Federal Communication] Commission shall have the authority to enforce the Commission’s broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein.
`(b) Enforcement-
`(1) IN GENERAL- This section shall be enforced by the Commission under titles IV and V. A violation of the Commission’s broadband policy statement or the principles incorporated therein shall be treated as a violation of this Act.
`(3) ADJUDICATORY AUTHORITY- The Commission shall have exclusive authority to adjudicate any complaint alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein. […] If, upon completion of an adjudicatory proceeding pursuant to this section, the Commission determines that such a violation has occurred, the Commission shall have authority to adopt an order to require the entity subject to the complaint to comply with the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein. Such authority shall be in addition to the authority specified in paragraph (1) to enforce this section under titles IV and V. In addition, the Commission shall have authority to adopt procedures for the adjudication of complaints alleging a violation of the broadband policy statement or principles incorporated therein.
`(e) Definition- For purposes of this section, the term `Commission’s broadband policy statement’ means the policy statement adopted on August 5, 2005, and issued on September 23, 2005, In the Matters of Appropriate Framework for Broadband Access to the Internet over Wireline Facilities, and other Matters (FCC 05-151; CC Docket No. 02-33; CC Docket No. 01-337; CC Docket Nos. 95-20, 98-10; GN Docket No. 00-185; CS Docket No. 02-52).’.
\=================
Clause (a) means that the FCC is responsible for drafting the rules and regulations that implement the law. Their rules and regulations will have the force of law, meaning that they will have the same effect as if Congress had passed them as statutes.
Clause (b) means that the FCC is not only responsible for writing the law, they are also responsible for enforcing it. In particular, (b)(3) states that the FCC has *exclusive* jurisdiction for enforcing the law, meaning that you go to the FCC rather than to the courts to enforce the law. The courts will intervene and sometimes do. However, they do so under something called the Chevron doctrine, which means that they are required to give deference to the FCC’s interpretations of its own rules. Short answer: the FCC usually wins those battles.
So in short, the FCC is more powerful than Congress because Congress only gets to pass laws that are later interpreted solely by the judiciary. The FCC gets to pass laws in the form of rules and regulations, then gets to interpret those laws in the adjudicatory process described in (b)(3). If its interpretations are challenged in court, courts will not give the FCC the de novo interpretive process that it gives Congress, but will instead defer to the FCC’s interpretation because of the Chevron deference doctrine (see below).
Finally, clause (e) states that the guiding principles are those stated in the FCC’s broadband principles statement, which you can find at:
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=04267931975+1+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Chevron deference and the Administrative Procedures Act combine to mean that the courts have to accept the FCC’s decisions unless those decisions are not supported by the enabling legislation. Here, the enabling legislation tells the FCC to go out and make rules/regulations (i.e., laws) in support of the principles in the broadband principles statement. As long as what they do is supportable by reference to that document, their word is law.
So what you really need to do now is to read 70 FR 60222, which is the broadband principles statement that will guide how the FCC implements this law.
What you really needed to do was to make a public comment on the Commission’s Report and Order (Order) in CC Docket Nos. 02-33, 01-337, 95-20, 98-10; WC Docket No. 04-242; FCC 05-150. However, it was adopted August 5, 2005 so now it’s too late. But you can still have some say by watching for the process by which the report mandated by clause (c) is created:
`(c) Study- Within 180 days after the date of enactment of this section, the Commission shall conduct, and submit to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, a study regarding whether the objectives of the broadband policy statement and the principles incorporated therein are being achieved.
If that report says that everything is roses, the issue disappears from public view for another 10 years. And if you don’t believe me, remember that this process is a revision of the Telecomm Act of 1996 and it’s now 2006 - a gap of 10 years. When Congress finishes this bill, it expects the FCC to finish the rest of the work and Congress will generally not intervene. The one exception is the occasional report that Congress requires just so that it can pretend, to itself if no one else, that it is providing appropriate oversight.
Last note: Someone implied that I might be a highly paid lobbiest for powerful telecomm interests. Maybe I am - on the net, no one can tell if you’re a dog. But I footnote and cite all of my major claims, which I have done again here, and all of my citations are to authoritative primary sources where possible. You don’t have to accept anything that I say without looking it up for yourself, which I hope you will do. Best regards.
June 11th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
XYZZY — good ideas, too late for this vote.
The current vote is yes or no on the bill now on the table.
It’s way too late to discuss what you want voted on — this time — unfortunately. Wish you’d gotten into the discussion before it reached the voting stage.
Right now you get either a vote to maintain the status quo, long enough to seriously thing about things, or a vote for the market to take over the switches and bandwidth.
The business model is to keep the channel full of advertised material and use the return path primarily for payment and registration information.
We have net access now that works rather like Ben Franklin’s Post Office — everyone can get information.
Yes, there are faster competitors, you can FedX or UPS overnight. It doesn’t take away the postal service.
Yes, faster and fancier information services can be provided. And should be.
But you don’t want the US mail, for example, to give preferred bandwidth to the people sending you junkmail, and leave delivering personal mail from people who just pay the flat rate to last, eh? Because the people who want to fill up your mailbox — can afford to.
Think of the current vote as a minimum decency vote — a ‘wait, let’s think’ vote — a chance to nudge the market over and get it to develop its own system rather than taking over, and repurposing, the Internet.
People made it the way it is for good reason, for people to use.
Natural people, not the United States’s peculiar corporate people who now are prepared to take it over.
June 11th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
My apologies. The bill text link that I gave above is faulty. Please try:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/useftp.cgi?IPaddress=162.140.64.21&filename=hr850rh.txt&directory=/diskb/wais/data/109_cong_bills
Or just go to GPOAccess.gov and enter “HR 5252″ in the text box. (In fact, forget about clicking the link I gave you. If you’re going to be politically active in any meaningful way, you’ve got to learn to use Thomas.LOC.gov and GPOAccess.gov for yourself.)
June 11th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
As a self-employed graphics professional, I am utterly net-dependent in my work.
As a self-employed graphics professional, I am utterly web-dependent. I already pay a sizable, but what I consider a fair, premium for my broadband connection and for my web presence. However, If I had to pay considerable upcharges for making my work available, to make sure my emails - which often include my professional work, to have my client’s web sites visible - would seriously threaten my business and career.
I do not trust the telecoms to sustain free an open access in the least! To quote a rather infamous source “Move zig for great justice!!!!”
June 11th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
[…] Thanks a lot, House. Way to represent. […]
June 11th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Heh… Xyzzy, did you know that South Korea has net neutrality laws, along with Japan and the United Kingdom? Yet despite this “crippling” legislation, their broadband internet service is far superior to ours. Your argument that net neutrality will put a halt to industry competition and improved service doesn’t hold water.
JR
June 11th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
The, cough, FCC, cough …
You’re telling me I should trust in in the protection provided by a regulatory agency of the US Government?
And this immediately _after- The 4:4 tie was finally broken after 14 months with the tiebreaker chair empty, now filled by the appointment of …
If you will get up off the damn floor and stop laughing, I will too, and we can go back to having a serious conversation here.
http://www.networkworld.com/weblogs/wan/012687.html
which provides a link to more information at
http://www.networkworld.com/columnists/2006/021306johnson.html
June 11th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
… cough…
Ask any ham radio operator you know, including me, about the FCC:
http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/
June 11th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
>FCC… You’re telling me I should trust in in the protection provided by a regulatory agency of the US Government?
No, I’m saying that the attention on Congress is misplaced. The FCC will write the laws (in the form of administrative rules and regs to the extent authorized by 47 USC 715. What the House does or does not do, likewise the Senate, is of only minor consequence.
>Your argument that net neutrality will put a halt to industry competition and improved service doesn’t hold water.
My argument is that, from an engineering and technical standpoint (because I am a scientist), there is no such thing as network neutrality (see Tim Wu and others, cited above). Assuming that y’all are not arguing for the enforcement of something that has not, does not, and can not exist, I wonder what it is that you want. I know only what you don’t want or can’t (rationally) want:
1. You can’t want everyone to pay the same amount for net access. You can’t afford to pay the millions of dollars that Google pays, and the telcos won’t stay in the business if they have to supply net access to Google for the $50/month that you pay. Therefore, you agree that there will be price differentiation.
2. You can’t want only one class of service. You can’t efficiently send email and real-time streaming video with one class of service. Therefore, you must want at least two classes of service, and in fact you must want many classes of service to provide high reliability (VoIP), high predictability (real-time apps), very low cost for small mesages (email), and so forth.
3. You can’t possibly want a definition of net neutrality that restricts net innovation. That means that you can’t want to allow innovation, but only to the extent that it looks exactly like what we have, treats everything exactly the way it is treated now… in short, its effect is completely neutral.
So you can’t want engineering network neutrality (see Wu, previous posts), you must want multiple classes of service (see 2 above), you can’t want to stifle innovation with a tight definition of net neutrality (see 3 above), and you cannot want one price for all classes of service or new innovations (see 1 above). I’m not arguing for or against anything. I’m just asking, given the list of things that it’s impossible for you to want, what is left? What do you want? The words that you are using have a plain English meaning, and it’s impossible that you are using them in that way. So all I want to know is this: what are you talking about? What do you think network neutrality is?
Your focus on Congress gives one clue, which is that you must want something that Congress can grant. That means that you don’t want something that one would ordinarily get from the implementing rules and regulations that the FCC will write. But what can Congress give? I honestly can’t think of anything. We didn’t see you when the FCC was drafting the broadband statement of principles that will guide this legislation and you weren’t around when the DACA report was being written, so you’re not interested in the big picture. You’re not bugging the FCC so you’re not interested in the details. What then? What do you want?
So your assessment of my argument is wrong for one simple reason: until I can put together some idea, however faint and incoherent, about what you’re talking about, I’m in no position to advance an argument and I have not done so.
June 11th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
xyzzy, do you work for the telcoes? you trying to infiltrate and spin? what’s your problem?– print out your entire comments and save them for posterity– for when net neutrality is defeated, and you’re getting ripped off for shitty service, and the internet no longer remains free and open–i want you to eat the pages, because your arguments are shit anyway– is this a matter of ego now, to continue in your myopia?
June 11th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
>some idea, however faint
That comes after the law’s changed and the business plans get rolled out.
http://www.senate.gov/general/search/search_cfm.cfm?q=net+neutrality&x=0&y=0&site=default_collection&num=10&filter=0
June 11th, 2006 at 10:56 pm
>xyzzy, do you work for the telcoes?
I do not work for telcos, nor have I ever, nor do I have any prospects of doing so at any time in the future, nor, so far as I know, do I have relatives who do. I think that three of my neighbors work for Level 3, but I only know one of them, so I don’t think that qualifies me as a zealous partisan. I’m a middle-aged, slightly overweight computer programmer for a small and mostly inconsequential software company in a relatively small town in the midwest that has nothing whatever to do with telecomm or telcos or networks or ISPs. We have a web site and I use email - that’s my connection with the net. All I want is for someone to tell me what net neutrality means. I’ve read the postings so I know it’s good; I know that anyone in opposition to it is evil; and I know that all of these things are obvious to anyone of the most modest intellect. That’s fine. I can live with that. I can even accept that. All I need to know now is what it is.
Once I find out, I may take a position one way or another and may even advance an argument in support thereof. But, as I’ve mentioned in previous postings, all I know now is what it doesn’t mean. So for now, my aspirations are quite modest. For today, I just want to know what the phrase “net neutrality” means. And if you could tell me without yelling at my any more then I’d like that, although we in the midwest tend not to be too pushy or demanding so at this point I’ll take it any way I can get it.
June 11th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
[…] House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet. Save the internet reports: Jeannine Kenney, senior policy analyst of the Consumers Union: Special interest advocates from telephone and cable companies have flooded the Congress with misinformation delivered by an army of lobbyists to undermine decades-long federal practice of prohibiting network owners from discriminating against competitors to shut out competition. Unless the Senate steps in, today’s vote marks the beginning of the end of the Internet as an engine of new competition, entrepreneurship and innovation. […]
June 12th, 2006 at 12:09 am
Thank you Hank for a pointer to data that lets me at least figure out what net neutrality is. I’m still not sure why anyone wants it, but at least I’ve got what you think it is. I’ll leave you all with a few notes and then I’m outta here.
The way it’s going to work is that Congress is going to pass some big-picture statute and then go away for a decade or so. The FCC is going to develop the implementing rules and regulations and they are also the ones that are going to fine-tune things over time. The FCC gets to do whatever it wants subject to the limit that they may not contravene the will of Congress as expressed in the statute. The FCC may not do what Congress has said not to do and may not legislate in an area in which Congress has not delegated authority.
Let’s take a specific example. In the Net Neutrality hearings that Hank cited, Senator Ron Wyden stated that “I will shortly introduce legislation that will make sure all information is made available on the same terms so that no bit is better than another one.” In other words, his legislation will deny the FCC the ability to make laws that would restrict particular sources of information. How does that apply to a particular source, let’s say a notorious kid-porn site? It applies exactly as written. The FCC may do whatever it wants, subject to the limit that it may not exceeds its delegated powers. Here, itss mandate is to make “all information available on the same terms” and it is therefore prohibited from taking steps to encourage or even allow a carrier to discriminate against the kid-porn site.
But here’s the interesting part: what if Congress had minded its own business and left net neutrality for the FCC to do, and what if the FCC adopted Wyden’s proposal EXACTLY as written, no change, word-for-word what Wyden said? Then the FCC could regulate net neutrality as it saw fit including by creating exceptions for kid-porn sites. And they could do a whole lot more, and do it better, and do it more dynamically than Congress ever will. That’s the whole idea. That’s why the FCC exists.
That’s why I can’t figure out why you guys are so worked up about getting this from Congress. Everybody has a job, and this is not Congress’ job. This is the FCC’s job. This bill is such a piece of trivia that it isn’t even worth the brain cells that you’re using to know that it exists. The action is at the FCC. The only important thing to come out of Congress is 47 USC 715(e), which makes the FCC’s Broadband Policy Statement the only thing about which you care. (See previous post.)
And even the broadband policy statement is sort of a piece of history. The future action is with things like the DACA report. Do you know what’s in that? Do you even know what that is? Do you even have the slightest idea that it exists? Do you know that it (and other things like it) will render all of this noise that you’re making here completely moot, regardless of the outcome? Do you know how to get drafts of it, contribute comments, and get involved at a stage at which you can do more than write impotent posts on obscure web sites?
Start by getting the most recent issue of the Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, read everything except the Sicker article, and do something intelligent with that. And if you don’t want to learn anything new or hear anyone except people who agree with you, don’t worry - Mark Cooper has a good article in that issue that will warm your hearts even as it contributes something to your remarkably closed minds.
The reason I’ve been trying to get someone to tell me what you’re talking about, by the way, is that every competent engineer in the world knows that problems and solutions are two different things. You’re worried about a specific problem, the kind of net neutrality that keeps providers from restricting access to certain information. (You don’t actually believe that - you’re very happy when kid-porn sites are blocked and when originators of denial-of-service attacks are source-quenched - but phrases like “free access to all information” sound good and so you keep repeating them.) Great. Now what’s the solution? You want to use the least flexible and most error-prone means available with the worst error-correction possibilities, which is an Act of Congress. Nuechterlein and Weiser describe a couple of other ways in Digital Crossroads. Why are you so sold on Congressional mandate when structural separation is the scheme that’s working in the UK and Baxter’s Law suggests yet a third alternative? (I hate to ask, but… you DO know Baxter’s Law, don’t you? And a reminder - no, I don’t do telecomm now, never have, not likely to start. It’s just so fundamental that no reasonable person would participate in this discussion without at least knowing that Baxter’s Law exists.)
You’re doing it wrong, plain and simple. First, you’re too late. The foundational document is the broadband policy doc from the FCC and you didn’t make yourself heard in time to influence the policy so now you’re going to lose out to people who did. Second, you’re in the wrong place. Congress cannot give you what you need, although it can grant you what you’re demanding to the detriment of us all. You need to be at the FCC. Third, you’re fighting the last war. The current war is the next generation of broadband policy statements being debated and developed at conferences you’re not going to attend but in journals that you could read like the Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law. Read Nuechterlein and Weiser’s book first so that you at least know the meanings of the words that you’re using.
Good luck.
XYZZY out.
June 12th, 2006 at 7:01 am
French Revolution was done.
It was something that drastically changed the social system, releasing people from being slaves (serfs) of local lords, 2nd class entities, to being ‘the people’ as we know it.
Some oversighted personas came up later and advertised ‘constutitional monarchy’, ‘the nations interests’ and so on.
Then came up somebody named napoleon and crapped out what is left of the ideals and effects of original revolution. Dukes and Counts appeared again, the people who became ‘the people’ (you and me) were pushed to being 2nd class entities, this time not by law but by laws that favored ‘business’.
Internet is something similar to french revolution, industrial revolution.
It changed everything in this WORLD, causing venezuelan kids, japanese kids, swedish kids to grow up together, playing the same games, talking in the same chatroom and laughing at the same jokes.
It is something VERY big that has allowed ‘THE PEOPLE’ come together, make their voice heard, and reduce the differences that has lead to many wars and sorrow up until now.
Well, now we have the Telcos, the telecommunications companies coming in. They want to make money. They want to make MORE money. They want to DOUBLE CHARGE something for the same use. They want to be the trolls on the bridge.
WHATEVER technical or rational reason is proposed to defend this bill, the bill will IN ANY CASE GIVING THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE INTERNET TO THE ISPS. There is no fud that can be blurted out to present otherwise. Never has the anti-trust regulations been successfull to effectively prevent and block malpractice, this case they will not be succeeding either. Big business can always find a way to impress its will, since it has very big resources. See the congress. See $10 million spent almost overnight in advertising. See something that was nonexistent a few months earlier became a bill.
This is not a matter of packets, protocols, networking, junctions and pipes.
This is a matter of freedom.
This is a matter of freedom in the kind that was the matter in 1774.
This is a matter of freedom that might be broader in impact than the one in 1774, because this affects EVERY HOUSEHOLD ON THE FACE OF THE NATION, and probably a little while later, ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.
It is plain STUPID to entrust a thing that has such a big importance to the hands of ANY business, nomatter how much trust there is in them.
I repeat that i take anyone who defends this power grab as an “enemy of the people” for this is, knowingly, or ignorantly, what they are.
June 12th, 2006 at 11:23 am
my apologies xyzzy– i got a bit testy and acted inappropriate in my previous post. however, i find it hard to believe that someone, who’s obviously intelligent, fails to see the issue of net neutrality that threatens architecture of the internet as we know it– fine, disagree, it’s healthy, but you claim not to understand the uproar. some of the sources you cite (Nuechterlein and Weiser, Wu) seem to be anti-NN, and someone like Nuechterlein who represented telco’s would obviously make the case against NN. anyway, i’m sure you’ve read the other posts on this site, if not do so, and go to lessig.org (where your Wu is, i believe, a guest blogger) as well as media matters or any of the other links in the side bar of this website and you will find the issues some of us are concerned about (albeit slanted for NN)–
what you have to do is forget you’re a techie/programmer– we all want super connections, etc… but not at the expense of compromising equal access to the internet–even with net neutrality, the market will see advancement connection technology because users will demand it (and if the big guys fail, there will be the locals), government will give corporate welfare, and in the end, you will have your superspeed connections– this is just major corporations trying to whine their way to control, like petulant children who don’t get their way.
and no, you won’t pay (as a user) what google pays and vice-versa– that was a bad example– it’s not the issue–
say for instance your small programming company (or whatever it is) has a website offering your services, goods, whatever–now, say, oh, comcast has a subsidiary in the same business you’re in, offering the same stuff– NN ensures you each can reach the people easily– however, lets say there’s no NN, comcast will restrict your flow– maybe charge you a bunch so people can easily reach you.– that’s what it’s about–
and the fcc has nothing to do with it NOW– that fact that it’s up to become a LAW is the issue—
anyway, i know my post wasn’t very clear, ran illogically and i’m skimpy on explanation but i’m pressed for time, gotta go. –i really just wanted to apologize to xyzzy for my outburst.
oh, xyzzy, don’t say things like this:
>You don’t actually believe that - you’re very happy when kid-porn sites are blocked and when originators of denial-of-service attacks are source-quenched - but phrases like “free access to all information” sound good and so you keep repeating them.
first, it’s cheap. your kiddieporn example is just cheap, like a politician going around saying–i’m a good guy– i’m against rape, murder, and child abuse..yeah, well great…basically your argument above sounds like something from karl rove’s playbook– you’re for “free access to all information” , which means you’re obviously for kiddieporn…
June 12th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
[…] So, if you haven’t heard yet, the house voted against internet neutrality. The short story here is that companies will have to pay extra to have their websites load quickly. “Low paying” websites will load slowly, forcing visitors away. […]
June 12th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
This should help — note that a person’s public stance (Cerf’s) changes as he changes employers. This is how the world works.
Google for “comp.risks” +”net neutrality” led me to this from
telecom-digest
Subject: Vint Cerf Testimony to Congressional Committee
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:19:39 -0600
Vint Cerf Speaking Out on Internet Neutrality
By CircleID Reporter
In a U.S. congress hearing held yesterday November 9th, significant
focus was projected on ‘network neutrality’ and a new
telecommunications bill affecting the Internet. “This bill
could fundamentally alter the fabulously successful end-to-end
Internet,” says Alan Davidson in the post on Google blog.
Vint Cerf was not able to testify because of the Presidential Medal of
Freedom award ceremony at the White House, but submitted the following
letter to the hearing:
Dear Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell,
I appreciate the inquiries by your staff about my availability to
appear before the Committee and to share Google’s views about draft
telecommunications legislation and the issues related to ‘network
neutrality’. These are matters of great importance to the Internet and
Google welcomes the Committee’s hard work and attention. ….
The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is
in many ways directly attributable to the architectural
characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was
designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The
Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at
each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By
placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of
the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This
has led to an explosion of offerings’s from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to
blogging that might never have evolved had central control of the
network been required by design.
My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the
Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network
operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to
potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in
control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment
their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own
services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country
and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among
broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such
operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over
any applications placed on the network.
As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old
non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable
neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to
thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call;
network operators should not dictate what people can do online.
I am confident that we can build a broadband system that allows users
to decide what websites they want to see and what applications they
want to use and that also guarantees high quality service and network
security. That network model has and can continue to provide economic
benefits to innovators and consumers and to the broadband operators
who will reap the rewards for providing access to such a valued
network.
We appreciate the efforts in your current draft to create at least a
starting point for net neutrality principles. Google looks forward to
working with you and your staff to draft a bill that will maintain the
revolutionary potential of the broadband Internet.
Thank you for your attention and for your efforts on these important
issues.
Sincerely,
Vinton Cerf
Chief Internet Evangelist
Google Inc.
CircleID is an Online Community Hub for the Internet’s Core
Infrastructure & Policy Developments. Copyright 2005 Circle ID.
http://www.circleid.com
[TELECOM Digest Editor’s Note: While Vint Cerf raises some very good
points, he seems to overlook the fact that Internet already has a
de-facto central coordinator in the form of ICANN. And while ICANN
would seem to agree with Cerf on one point at least, that ‘network
operators should not dictate what people can do online’ (which is to
say they do not object to or stop spammers, scammers, virus writers
and similar vermin) ICANN sees no objection to having very onerous
contracts for regular users to follow. I’d accept his efforts at
sincerity — even if he is a bit misguided, IMO — if ICANN would at
the very least write their contracts to at least show disapproval of
some of the crap which has taken such a chokehold on the net in the
past decade. As long as things remain as they are now, where a regular
net user — like myself, or most of you — can lose his domain name in
an instant if ICANN chooses to enforce its contract and revoke us,
while turning a blind eye toward the ones who need to be revoked –
virus writers, fraudsters, spammers, etc — then I am not sure I
believe Vint Cerf is doing other than putting on a good show for
Congress when he makes speeches or writes letters such as illustated
here. Quite obviously, Cerf is more than happy with the de-facto
central authority on the net (ICANN). He would have been more honest
saying “I do not want central authority _unless it is the central
authority of which I approve_. And in his years of employment with
MCI, Vint Cerf also sang a different tune: Control of the net by an
MCI/ICANN consortium would have suited him fine. PAT]
June 12th, 2006 at 2:20 pm
There’s a great four or five minute audio piece done by Norm Augustinus regarding Net Neutrality over at Madge Weisnstein’s site, funny and real at the same time.
http://www.yeastradio.com
June 12th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
[…] 一直致力于推动Net neutrality的Savetheinternet发表了House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet的帖子，失望之余，开始寄希望于参议院能通过Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006。（不太明白参众两院是咋工作的，//blush) […]
June 12th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Karen:
You should have mentioned what entry the Norm Augustinus bit on Net Neutrality could be found over at Madge Weinstein’s site…
After some looking find the Norm thing in the latest entry, June 12.
http://www.yeastradio.com
By the way, it’s funny as hell. Thanks!
June 12th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
[…] In recent news (thanks AC) savetheinternet.com reports “House Ignores Public, Sells Out the Internet“: Last night’s House vote against an amendment that would make Net Neutrality enforceable is the result of swarming lobbyists and a multi-million-dollar media campaign by telephone companies that want Congress to hand them control of the Internet. […]
June 13th, 2006 at 9:49 am
You have heard the statement, “Money talks, everything else walks”. Well in this case, “everything else” includes petitions. However, if 50 million broadband subscribers who also utilize the same carrier for their cable TV, were to discontinue those services, well folks that is 5 Billion Dollars in lost revenue (Money). That would be one significant statement!
June 13th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
its all about money and who you want on your side. rite now, the goverment( we dident reilly want Bush, but he’s hear) whats AT&T, Verison and Bellsouth. since they have more power (money) they get to decide what happends.
WHERE IS OUR CONTREY?!!???
LETS TAKE IT BACK, STARTING NOW!
June 16th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
With so many interesting posts about the NN situation it gives one pause… the story is so complicated. If they made it about the ‘technology’ maybe things would be simpler. I remember when AOL had maybe 50 websites and everything was under construction (remember when they charged by the hour?) It was and is always about the money. (I liked my free “Pine” unix-based internet better at the time with so much more info… different and more advanced info). This is a real moment in history… Bill Gates… The FCC vs. NN (theory)…
“Bill Gates has had a huge impact on the industry. For good or ill, Microsoft, along with IBM, was responsible for turning the personal computer from a somewhat exotic device used by hobbyists and a few early adopters into a ubiquitous tool used by billions of people. Along the way, Microsoft evolved from a small software company to an industry juggernaut with its fingers in pies ranging from cell phones to game consoles to big iron servers.
Of course, the company was later reviled by people who believed it was suppressing innovation and competition through hardball marketing and sales tactics. Microsoft has been investigated by just about every government in the developed world for antitrust violation.”…
“Love him or hate him, Bill Gates had a consistent vision of what technology could do for all of us. These days, clear vision seems to be lacking in the technology game. Let’s hope that someone else—not necessarily from Microsoft—can step in to fill that void.” (read full story at: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1977432,00.asp
It always ends up about the money. Maybe we should all put in our notice & move to Korea.
June 17th, 2006 at 12:31 am
Two points.
1. Try web surfing in China: Gee, where’s the search engine? What is this web site? Why can’t I get…
Don’t you wish all those lawmakers had to rely on web access like China has for their records of which lobby group they should be sucking up to?
2. Being from California our (present) best shot is Senator B. Boxer. The information I have received from her has been very positive. She claims she is even trying to improve the weak wordingin present legislation ensuring NN.
However, a few years back as an elected official, I went head to head with Boxer when she was rubber stamping logging company vested interests. Which side of the fence is she really sitting on?
June 22nd, 2006 at 7:30 am
I think there is a middle ground to this issue that most people would agree with. It’s not quite “net neutrality”, yet it’s not quite “hands off” either.
Here’s why we SHOULD let the telcos and cable companies create the “fast lane”: Currently, things like streaming HD video and audio content over the net in realtime just can’t happen. The networks need to be faster and/or data transmission needs to be constant. Sure, you can download it and watch it later, but as more and more content becomes on-demand, being able to get the content in realtime just makes sense.
This opens up a world of possibilities… Imagine not having to buy any movies or music, but instead paying fractions of a penny to listen to each song or a little more to watch a movie or TV show whenever you want to at the highest quality. Moving from storage technology to storage technology (such as record to cassette to CD) would no longer be an issue. Would we have to make sure companies couldn’t abuse prices? Yes. But imagine listening to any song or watching any movie or TV show you wanted to right now and being able to do so legally and affordably. The artists and creators get paid for the amount of time people view their work. Instead of owning the content, you use it. That would solve a lot of copyright issues the net is currently having, but that’s a completely different topic.
What we SHOULD NOT let them do is censor or prioritize information within each lane or realm. CNN’s site should load just as fast as your blog, Cartoon Network should be broadcast in the same quality as the History Channel, and you should be able to access both savetheinternet.com and handsoff.org.
In an ideal world, networks would be so fast that this wouldn’t be an issue. You could send the data faster than it was used. For something like streaming hundreds of HDTV channels, prioritization of packets is just a reality. HDTV packets would have to be given higher priority than your grandma’s e-mail. Grandma’s e-mail can afford to get pushed back a millisecond or two (again, as long as the practice isn’t abused). Time critical applications such as high def video and games can’t. Some day, maybe the pipes will be big enough that we can just shove everything through one pipe, but right now they’d just choke.
So, in summary… I think the majority of the posters here would agree that this would be the ideal situation: Additional lanes (whether conceptual or physical) such as a high-def content lane or medical lane should be able to be added, but the data in each “lane” (all web sites, for example) should not be prioritized or censored. Data from msn.com and savetheinternet.com should travel at the same speed, as should data from the channels ABC and CBS. Innovation in ways content and information is given to us is possible, but the freedom and integrity of that information remains intact. With complete net neutrality as I’ve seen it described, we’d be stuck where we are now forever. But I agree that with no regulation at all, it means the telcos and cable companies could have their way with us and charge extremely high prices.
Some regulations are needed, but not full-blown “net neutrality”. Yes, that means we’ll have to watch the big dogs to make sure they play fair while building their better network, but as consumers we should always be doing just that.
July 21st, 2006 at 10:06 pm
[…] Save the Internet Blog Archive House Ignores Public, Sells Out … INSPIONS Setback for Internet, Net Neutrality was rejected in House of … So, if you haven t heard yet, the house voted against internet neutrality. … […]