One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet
June 14th, 2006 by tkarr |
Our real grassroots Coalition called today on Senators to heed growing public outcry for Net Neutrality as we delivered more than 1 million petitions and letters from average Americans to Capitol Hill.
During the event we urged Congress to protect Net Neutrality and stand firm against efforts by phone and cable companies to control the Internet.Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) joined us to call on their colleagues to support the “Internet Freedom and Preservation Act” (S. 2917), a bipartisan bill that would bar companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from blocking, degrading or interfering with content or services on the Internet. Here are some of the comments from the event:
Senator Olympia Snowe
“The idea that brings us together is a free and unfettered Internet. It’s vital we preserve, not undermine, the extraordinarily democratic technological network - over which content providers from the largest corporations in the biggest cities in the world to single individuals in rural towns have equal opportunity to reach millions of Internet users.”
Senator Byron Dorgan
“It’s essential that we preserve Internet freedom. The open architecture which now exists, and which allows everyone fair access to any site on the Internet, without gatekeepers, must be preserved. That is what our bill would do - preserve Internet freedom, which is at the very core of what makes the Internet so important, and something that enriches the lives of millions of Americans.”
The million petition signatures and letters were collected via the SavetheInternet.com Coalition Web site and by members of the coalition, including Free Press, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Common Cause, Consumers Union, True Majority and Working Assets. Spokes people from MoveOn and the Christian Coalition of America were at the press event. Here are some of their comments:
Joan Blades of Moveon
“Net Neutrality has allowed the Internet to become the new public square, where everyday people can participate in our democracy and have their voices heard. We cannot let the Internet gatekeepers decide who gets into the public square — everyone from MoveOn to the Christian Coalition should get in, so the best ideas can thrive based on their merit. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition will intensify our grassroots pressure on the Senate to assure that Internet freedom is preserved and Net Neutrality remains the law of the land.”
Michele Combs of the Christian Coalition of America
“We’re committed to working on behalf of our supporters to ensure that the Internet remains the free marketplace of ideas, products, and services that it is today. We urge the Senate to move aggressively to save the Internet and allow ideas to thrive on the World Wide Web, and we will do our part to make certain our supporters get that message.”
More than 1 million Americans are speaking out on behalf of Internet freedom. Yet Congress still could cave to corporate pressure by rewriting laws and handing over control of the Internet to corporations like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. The Senate must step in to defend the Internet from gatekeepers who plan to tax innovation and throttle the free market.
Let’s keep the heat on. The Senate can not simply sell out the public and let AT&T, Verizon and Comcast turn our Internet into their private domain.
Watch this space for videos of the event.
June 14th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
I realize that this has moved on to the Senate, but I would like to share what my Congressman, Rick Larsen (D-WA) replied to me when I asked for his rationale on his vote on HR 5252. Frankly, I found it disgusting that that he DID NOT answer me, but was combative (IMO). My husband wrote to him, too, and got the same cockamamie response:
Hello Micki,
Thanks very much for the e-mail concerning my vote on the Markey Amendment. We don’t disagree that the internet should maintain is open best efforts delivery platform. A question for you: Do you have an existing example of an Internet Service Provider “blocking” or “tiering” a content provider from you? The internet has been amazingly democratic and empowering to non traditional businesses and individuals. It has also been left mostly free from government regulation and as a result the free market has driven internet development and use. I want an open internet just like you but I am concerned that there is not a consumer protection problem that would require a new government regulated set of rules at this time. What are your thoughts?
Best,
Rick
PS: Major Corporations, such as Microsoft, supported the Markey Amendment. Does their support of the amendment, as one of biggest corporations in the world cause you pause?
June 14th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
Thanks micki:
Larsen’s got his facts wrong on two fronts. His notion that the Internet has thrived free of government regulation is a red herring for more about that check this out:
Net Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction
And his idea that there’s no real threat of “blocking” or “tiering” is again just plain wrong headed. For more on that, check this out:
Big Lie of the Week: No. 3
Larsen is parroting talking points that were force fed him by phone lobbyists. He appears to have gobbled these hook, line and sinker — without taking the time to expose his own deception.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:17 pm
What happened to my first comment and your reply, Tim? Didn’t The Organization approve?
June 14th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Richard is partially right, but he is being misleading. I think this clarifies the issue:
ISPs that provide Internet access, which is an “enhanced service,” have not been subject to the Title II non-discrimination requirements. See Robert Cannon, Where Internet Service Providers & Telephone Companies Compete: A Guide to the Computer Inquiries, Enhanced Service Providers & Information Service Providers, 9 CommLaw Conspectus, 1-2 (2001). ISPs (as distinguished from telecoms providing transmission services) have not been regulated and, in theory, could have blocked content providers or imposed QoS fees on them.
In fact, no legislation has directly imposed a non-discrimination rule on the ISPs (again as distinguished from the telecoms). However, the FCC prevented discrimination indirectly by adopting regulations that fostered competition among ISPs. The telecoms had to comply with separation and non-discrimination requirements if they wanted to enter the ISP market. See the Computer Inquiries. The result was a lot of competition in the ISP market because they had guaranteed access to the telecoms’ wirelines. The competitive ISP market generally yielded an environment where the ISPs could not discriminate against content providers without losing market share, and, therefore, generally they did not. (This includes the cable companies.)
While Internet access services were not regulated directly, it was that market and the content markets that were the intended beneficiaries of the restrictions imposed under the Computer Inquiries. The FCC wanted to ensure that “the communications facility be maintained as an open platform available to all and that cross-subsidization be prevented.” Robert Cannon, The Legacy of the Federal Communications Commission’s Computer Inquiries, 55 Fed. Comm. L.J. 169, 192 (Mar. 2003). The FCC wanted to prohibit the telecoms from using their market power in basic services, i.e. transmission, to create market power in the ISP market or in the content markets.
Now that the DSL Order has lifted the ISPs’ guaranteed access to the telecoms’ wirelines, independent ISPs are disappearing or will soon. Without competition from independent ISPs, we usually are left with a duopoly of the wireline owners in a given market: one cable company and one telecom. A duopoly might not provide enough competition to prevent discriminatory tactics, and imposing QoS fees–which some telecoms have promised to do–could be one such tactic.
This history is somewhat explained in Mr. Scott’s “Fact v. Fiction” article, which is at time unclear but not necessarily inaccurate. So Richard is right that there has not been a “no QoS fees” law, but he wrong about the article.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Free market forces can only thrive when there is competition. There is no competition for last-mile broadband. Simple regulations that empower the FCC, akin to AT&T’s marketing statements, are all that are needed.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
I see two more comments of mine have been censored. I have copies, Tim.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
ChadB makes some interesting points about telecom regulations and how they may or may not be stretched to cover routing, but I have to disagree with this: “A duopoly might not provide enough competition to prevent discriminatory tactics, and imposing QoS fees–which some telecoms have promised to do–could be one such tactic.”
The claim is that QoS-based fees are inherently discriminatory. This mind-boggling charge is probably at the heart of the movement to ban QoS, but it’s not factually correct at all.
QoS is a legitimate engineering practice sanctioned by Internet RFCs. It’s a part of the Law of the Internet today. Charging a fee for this service isn’t a matter of arbitrarily “imposing” a fee on traffic deemed to need QoS by some form of guesswork, it’s legitimate service offering.
I suspect that the failure to understand what QoS is and why it’s valuable for legitimate uses is the fundamental error the Free Press’ telecom-oriented regulators are making.
(Note to Tim: Go ahead and delete, I have a copy.)
June 14th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Please read this again: Rules for Commenting.
Make all the analogies you like, Richard, and I am certain you will. But these rules for the road have been there since day one. (much like the regulatory framework that supported Net Neutrality). And we have been exceedingly tolerant of your troll-like presence in this space and your off-topic regurgitation of industry talking points. But ad-hominem attacks don’t cut it.
Read the rules and live with them. And before you go hyperbolic about censorship, remember that your friends at “Hands off the Internet” don’t allow comments at all.
We do, and we’re happy to allow you a debate on the merits of your argument, such as they are. But your school yard attacks on those who disagree with you, including calling people “morons,” comparing them to pedophiles and suggesting that they be taken out and shot — to name just a few — don’t. (Do you have copies of those, too?)
Deal with it.
June 14th, 2006 at 7:57 pm
One of my deleted comments was substantial enough to elicit a detailed reply, and I don’t see any reference in the reply to “morons”, “pedophiles,” or “shooting people.”
Can you support your claims or are you just slandering me because you think you can get away with it?
June 14th, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Do you deny that you have made these comments in past posts? If you’d like to debate this I’d be happy to do so off line and if I’m wrong I’ll retract everything. I have copies, too.
This is a space for debate on the merits of Net Neutrality. Your participation in that is welcome as long as you follow these simple rules, one of which states that “opposing opinions are most welcome, as long as they are in conformity to Rules One, Two and Three and generally respectful of the views of others.”
June 14th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
I haven’t called anyone a pedophile. but I certainly have called some people morons; Zoe Lofgren for one. It’s hard to discuss politicians without using that vital part of the English dictionary. As for taking people out and shooting them, I suppose I might have said that in a colorful metaphoric way. Would it be better if I proposed horse-whipping?
But tell me, are these rules like neutrality regulations in that apply to me and not to thee? You haven’t exactly been a model of decorum in this thread yourself, you know.
This blog is paid-for with your employer’s money, so you can do whatever you want, but you look awfully silly when you delete comments after others have responded to them in a detailed and thoughtful way.
Not that I’m complaining, mind you.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:25 pm
ChadB,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Unfourtunately, they are partially inaccurate. See http://static.publicknowledge.org/pdf/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206.pdf on page 8.
I don’t think those in favor of net neutrality are neccessarilly completely anti-QoS. They are against any form of QoS which is used for discriminatory practices or as a means of blocking.
For example, I am strongly in favor of net neutrality and I would not oppose QoS using to control the latency of VoIP traffic and setting an upper limit on the amount of traffic considered VoIP traffic so sufficient bandwidth would be available for best effort traffic AS LONG AS ALL VOIP TRAFFIC FROM ANY VOIP SERVICE SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO SKYPE, GIZMO, VONAGE, CALLVANTAGE, AND COMCAST WOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY.
June 14th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
I wouldn’t oppose that either, but it’s not what Free Press and Google are demanding, is it?
June 14th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Complain all you like. Your participation is welcome as long as you follow the rules of the road. And I ain’t making these up as we go along or singling you out because you spend so much time trolling this space.
I can live with looking silly. This is a space for debate on Net Neutrality and whether or not telephone and cable companies should be allowed to re-write the rules in a way that allows them to discriminate — picking and choosing which content gets special favors based on who pays them the most.
You believe that such discrimination already exists and should be allowed to continue in a wholesale fashion as high-speed services increase.
Others want to see that these companies aren’t allowed to become content gatekeepers. We think their extra taxes would marginalize the small-time innovators who have been the lifeblood of the Internet since its inception, replacing the democratic new media system with a top-down business model that resembles old media legacies — such as broadcasting and cable.
It’s a worthwhile debate that should continue.
I believe that there’s a high bar for spicy metaphors here. Ad-hominem attacks are better kept to your blog.
June 14th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Right.
I’ve read the Roycroft “study” and finally figured out what you people really want and why. It’s been tough going because the agenda is hidden behind the spin.
In essence, Save The Internet wants to apply the regulatory framework that was devised for the old monopoly telephone system to the Internet. You argue this is proper because that’s the way it’s always been, and the Internet was born and flourished under that model.
That’s more or less correct, right: regulate the Internet like it was a telephone network? And toward that end you’ve enlisted some folks who are expert on the whys and wherefores of that regulatory system, and who cite chapter and verse of the 1934 Communications Act et. seq. when asked to illuminate their suggestions.
That’s a breath-taking revelation and I have to take some time to digest it, except to say that it would have been better to say so up front instead of inventing all this new language.
Anyhow, have fun standing up to the man and I’ll be back later.
June 14th, 2006 at 10:33 pm
You say that I what I am suggesting is not what Google and Free Press are demanding. I have seen no evidence that is true. Please show me your evidence.
In fact, I have evidence to the contrary:
See http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/06/14/the-post-should-check-the-facts-before-offering-an-opinion/ . Consider the statement: “They discriminate against Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) providers in quality of service (Comcast refuses to guarantee the same quality of service to unaffiliated VOIP providers),”
This means that Free Press is objecting to Comcast not guaranteeing the same QoS for traffic from other VoIP services as Comcast guarantees for its own service! NOT THAT FREE PRESS IS UNCONDITIONALLY OPPOSED TO QOS.
June 14th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
RichardBennett, That you for all your thoughful comments and research and for eventually coming around and agreeing with the position of savetheinternet.com . You say “That’s a breath-taking revelation and I have to take some time to digest it, except to say that it would have been better to say so up front instead of inventing all this new language.” I suggest you write something to explain this to other people to help them have the same revelation because the information Free Press is giving the public is clearly causing a lot of confusion (including you initially).
June 14th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
Whoa, dude, I didn’t say I agree. In fact, I disagree more strongly than ever.
You can’t force-fit the Internet into a regulatory framework that was devised for a monopoly phone network, that’s like making cars obey traffic laws devised for horses.
And on your other point, I suggest you read the anti-surcharge language in any of the bills these folks are pushing.
June 15th, 2006 at 10:20 am
rossmpersonal, please read my post more carefully. I wrote that “imposing QoS fees” could be used as a discriminatory tactic, not that enhanced QoS is a bad thing.
How would QoS fees be used in a discriminatory way? As you suggested, Comcast could offer enhanced QoS to only to some VOIP service providers and not to others. Or Comcast could charge all VOIP service providers $1 million per minute–making enhanced QoS cost-prohibitive and effectively denying them access to enhanced QoS–while offering its own VOIP service. Comcast can afford to pay itself $1 million per minute.
I suspect it is this line of thought that has current NN legislation permitting enahnced QoS and prohibitting QoS fees.
June 15th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
rossmpersonal, you also stated that my historical account was “partially inaccurate.” Can you please specify? I used the Public Knowledge white paper as a resource. After you posted the comment, I re-read the paper but find no inconsistencies.
June 15th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
RichardBennett,
True, you would not want to force the internet into a regulatory framework.
This statement is a typical play on words. Yes, we don’t want to do that, but
the Internet has been neutral since inception. Giving control of it to a phone
company is no better than giving it to the government.
Sometimes regulation can be a good thing. I have read the Markey amendment.
It makes sense, it is logical, it protects the way the Internet should be.
If you were anything like me — someone who has been online for a long time
and really, really loves the Internet. Then I think you would be screaming FOR
Neutrality.
I don’t want the government to come in and regulate everything about the Net.
But, for them to tell the telco cartel to take a step back from it before they let
greed and ignorance distroy it? That sounds like my kind of government regulation.
Dan
June 15th, 2006 at 11:47 pm
Dear Dan,
I didn’t say the Internet shouldn’t be regulated. I said it should be regulated.
I like the Internet too. In fact, I think it’s neat-o. And I’ve been using it since 1985, when it used to melt down all the time. I’m glad we fixed that.
But you know what?
There’s a good way to regulate and a bad way. The bad way acts like the Internet is a phone.
The good way acts like the Internet is for computers and stuff like that. I want the good way because I’m a Good Guy.
Are you on my side or are you with the Bad Guys?
June 16th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Richard,
Let me put it this way: I like my neat-o Internet just the way it is.
The Markey proposal treated the Internet like it should be treated–as a neutral network where no one service, medium, provider, company or whatever can be given priority over another.
Bad guys always like to pretend to be good guys…
Dan
June 16th, 2006 at 3:55 am
Hey, that’s cool. The Internet is a neat-o machine. It may be 30 years old, but we better not try to improve it ’cause we might break it.
Well, I have to go fill up my kerosene lamps and feed by horse so I can ride him to work at the mill down by the river after I feed the chickens tomorrow, so that’s all for now.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:42 am
You’ve got to be kidding. Hey Rich, you mind telling us why South Korea’s Internet service is far superior to ours? They have enforcable Net Neutrality laws, yet the average Internet connection over there is eight megs… considerably more than what we’re getting in the America.
Net neutrality, profit, and innovation seem to be quite compatible with each other in other countries. But in a backward plutocracy like the United States, the corporations will never be satisfied until they squeeze their customers, and the government, for every last dime. Who needs that pesky freedom of expression? It’s getting in the way of our profit!
If anyone’s anchoring us to the past, it’s the telcos and cable companies. It’s a good thing some OTHER countries still believe in empowering the people, rather than big business.
JR
June 16th, 2006 at 9:18 am
ArugulaZ - good question.
I hear crickets chirping.
June 16th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Korea doesn’t have any law remotely like the Markey Amendment prohibiting QoS and other enhanced services for a fee. But you didn’t say they did, did you? No, you said they have “net neutrality” laws, a claim nobody can verify or disprove because nobody knows what a “net neutrality” law looks like. I’ll bet you couple dozen Won the term “net neutrality” doesn’t occur in Korea’s statute books, just as it doesn’t appear in the Internet RFCs.
Korea has broadband because it’s easier to run fiber in a high-rise apartment building than in a town with 100 years worth of copper wire under the street, and also because they privatized their phone company. In all these countries that are ahead of the US in broadband, the phone company was owned by the government until very recently, and the cash they raised by privatization funded the broadband build-out.
In the US we have two major broadband networks, one never regulated by “neutrality” laws (cable) and that was has been (DSL).
Which is better?
The US isn’t Korea and it isn’t Japan. We should to follow the policies that have worked well here and avoid those that haven’t.
June 16th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Well if this passes, I’m pulling my plug -I’ll be d@mned if I pay for fast internet service and not be able to look at what I want and need to look at, what is the use to even have around if they can control us like this -BS
June 16th, 2006 at 5:15 pm
I’d pull the plug too, if that was to happen. I’ve been using cable to access the Internet from home for 7 years now, and I’ve never had that problem even though it’s not covered by Save the Internet’s telecom regulatory rules.
I must be awfully dumb to like it.
June 16th, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Richard,
The fact that you like cable isn’t what makes you awfully dumb. Sorry, couldn’t help that one. You set yourself up for it ;-]
But, our point is that the cable companies are not the ones talking about packet level
discrimination. The phone companies are. Comcast has stated that they are all for net
neutrality. ATT and Verizon have both publically stated that they are not.
But, let me ask you this: If your cable provider was yelling and screaming that they think
they should be able to charge Google extra to let you connect to Google, or you would
be redirected to CableCompanySearch.com instead — what would you do?
That is the damn worst case — but I don’t put that above the telco cartel. Obviously
1 million of my fellow internet users agree with me there.
Blah. You’re obviously a lost cause.
-d
June 16th, 2006 at 8:24 pm
There are over a billion people using the Internet today, so it shouldn’t surprise you that 1 out of every 1000 can get motivted to sign a petition, if they really did.
No ISP would re-direct Google searches elsewhere, but if they did the COPE Act as it stands would whup ‘em with a $500,000 fine.
And no, Comcast does not support these regulations, and neither do the wireless folks. And in the past, Internet co-daddy Vint Cerf spoke against Internet regulation.
Let’s get some actual facts here, dude, not just wild speculation.
June 17th, 2006 at 1:41 pm
I called Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray offices around 2:30 PM EDT, gave name, hometown then asked for the Net Neutrality point man.
In both cases the point man was not available.
“OK then what about another staff member on NN?
Well he’s the man.
Try calling again on Monday.
“OK I’ll call again on Monday.
[Both offices keep a tally of pros and cons, yes or no for each issue.]
“And put me down in strong support of NN.
Against any sellout or giveaway to the telecoms.
The internet belongs to American citizens.
And I don’t want to see happen to the Internet what has happened to Television.
Corporate hands off!
“But do Maria/Patty HAVE a position on the Net Neutrality vote?
No official position at this time but she’s in favor of open communication.
“OK but she doesn’t HAVE a position on the Tuesday vote?
“Why DOESN’T she have a position, with her experience in the communications industry and the Senate?
silence
[I describe the typical Congressional Representative for the receptionist:]
“It concerns me that our Representatives ask us to be patient while they “study the issue” or “get more input from constituents”.
“This one-way communication continues right up until the vote itself, after which any meaningful discussion is moot and there’s nothing left to do but commiserate about the loss of more citizens’ rights.
“We shouldn’t have to call and pester you folks for our Senator’s’ position, swarm your fax machine, generally make a nuisance for you.
“But the Senator’s staff should have already studied the legislation, should have already prepared the Senator to discuss the bill’s implications with their constituents.
“The Senator should HAVE a position AND the explanation of how they arrived on that position - well ahead of their vote.
“The lack of a position just tells constituents their representative lacks diligence and confidence of conviction and brings into question their leadership ability, maybe even their integrity.
“We need TIMELY TWO-WAY communication with our Senators on these important issues affecting our Constitutional rights.
“Those post mortem letters just don’t cut it any more.
“OK thanks for listening to me and I hope you have a great weekend!
June 17th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Interesting conversation. Maria used to work for Real Networks, one of the world’s premier users of an Internet protocol known as Real-Time Protocol or RTP. RTP applications - audio and video mainly - stand to benefit from more advanced traffic management on the Internet.
Her advice on this subject probably comes from people who are vastly more knowledgeable about the side-effects of the proposed regulations than most of us.
Patty may be getting her advice from Maria, but as the Senator From Microsoft(tm) she’s probably going the other way.
June 19th, 2006 at 12:55 am
[…] Save the Internet » Blog Archive » One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet […]