Thanks!

24 Responses to “Fight for Internet Freedom Moves to Senate Floor”

1. bukowski Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 5:50 pm

   Ron Wyden’s on the Senate floor right now puting a hold on S.2686.

   Interesting strategy. If the full bill can’t get onto the floor, then another NN amendment can’t be offered. Come August, NN on the teleco’s expires, and NN is gone. Though chances of a NN amendment passing on the full senate floor are probably worse than in Commerce Committee.

   Time to call the Senate Judiciary Committee, and tell them to assert anti-trust jurisdiction.

2. rossmpersonal Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 6:01 pm

   Tim,

   Please post the list of Senators who sold out to the telcos and their phone numbers and urge people to call to express their reactions.

3. bukowski Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 6:04 pm

   The 11 who did not support internet freedom:

   # Chairman Ted Stevens (AK): (202) 224-3004; (202) 224-2354 FAX

   # John McCain (AZ): (202) 224-2235; Fax: (202) 228-2862

   # Conrad Burns (MT): 202-224-2644; Fax: 202-224-8594

   # Trent Lott (MS): (202) 224-6253; Fax: (202) 224-2262

   # Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX): 202-224-5922; 202-224-0776 (FAX)

   # Gordon H. Smith (OR): 202.224.3753; Fax: 202.228.3997

   # John Ensign (NV): (202) 224-6244; Fax: (202) 228-2193

   # George Allen (VA): (202) 224-4024; Fax: (202) 224-5432

   # John E. Sununu (NH): (202) 224-2841; FAX (202) 228-4131

   # Jim DeMint (SC): 202-224-6121; Fax: 202-228-5143

   # David Vitter (LA): (202) 224-4623; Fax: (202) 228-5061

4. Kyle Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 6:38 pm

   For clarification, the amendment that failed was S2917, correct?

5. RichardBennett Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 6:48 pm

   Another victory for Democracy!

   It’s good that the Senators weren’t fooled by the misleading spin from the supporters of the Snowe-Dorgan poison pill. This amendment didn’t advance the public interest, it simply sought to advance the interests of one corporate sector over another.

6. Net Neutrality moves to the Senate at Graham English’s Integral Conversations Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 8:12 pm

   […] More… […]

7. Snowe Dorgan Amendment for Net Neutrality Defeated by a tie. Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 8:30 pm

   […] It’s time to get the Senate Judiciary Committee involved, since the amendment for Network Neutrality to the telecommunications bill (S. 2686) was defeated by a TIE vote of 11-11 in Committee. It amazes me that our government hasn’t learned yet that the minute they give in to the Telecomms the Telecomms no longer have the incentive to build out this broadband network they’ve been promising us for over ten years, the one we’ve already paid for in tax dollars, and that was never built. Or maybe the politicians have learned, and just don’t want to stop those campaign contributions from rolling in . . . […]

8. directorblue Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 9:24 pm

   Stay tuned, telco apologists. It ain’t law quite yet.

9. Ignoramus Says:
   June 28th, 2006 at 10:12 pm

   So, the response to my bleeting about the incompetancy of this campaign is to point me to the text of the act. I think this indicates that people just don’t get it.

   Is the expectation that all the people that need to put pressure on their representatives are going to find and read the legal text? If so, then we are doomed. Obviously, that is not going to happen.

   “save the ____” is begging to be ignored. People have been taught to hate anything called “save the ____”.

   “net neutrality” is begging to be ignored. What does it mean? People aren’t anxious to be neutral. “Internet freedom” something other than this vague ambigous phrase should have been used.

   Not putting the information that people need, in an easily digested form where it will be noticed immediately, is begging people to direct their attention elsewhere.

   Interviews where people don’t mention even once, what the specific threat is specifically and what specifically is the solution. Service to confuse people and make them loose interest. Specifics are what is needed, not abstracts followed by “please call your senator and repeat this phrase ____”.

   The specific information that is need is how exactly the legislation is an attack on internet freedom. That is specifically the information about the legislation, not “net neutrality” in the abstract. Specifically what in the legislation is the problem. And, specifically what in the amendment was to be the solution. Again, not vague assertions, but specifcally what.

   And, the answer is not: Go here and see. You want the specific information in the attention of the people who need to have it in their attention so they can understand it and tell others about it and tell their representatives.

   The average person is not going to even look for the legal text, let alone read it if they could find it.

   People’s reaction to this issue is “well I don’t really understand”. Of course! It’s because you don’t explain the specifics. You only give vagueries about abstracts. This campaign should be called “please ignore this campaign”.

   I think that must be the plan. I must be reading sham info and listening to sham interviews by people who are actually trying to divert people from taking an interest in this issue.

10. PBCliberal Says:
    June 28th, 2006 at 11:12 pm

    I’m sorry, Ignoramus, I’m the guy who pointed you to the text of the bill, thinking that was the best way to understand the actual language that would be enacted, as well as the “findings” that educate those who can read and understand legislation as to why the bill is necessary.

    My bad. I didn’t understand why you chose your posting name, but its all much clearer now.

11. ChadB Says:
    June 28th, 2006 at 11:21 pm

    Ignoramus, you are right about having to search through much rhetoric before a person can understand the issue.

    In short, without corrective action, in any given market, a telecom or cable company (or sometimes both) will be the only provider of broadcast TV, wireline telephony and Internet access. The lack of competition is due to the fact that the legacy telephone and cable wirelines have a bottleneck in the “last mile,” the facilities that connect consumers to the Internet.

    Historically, this problem was addressed in the telephone market under the FCC’s regulations promulgated during its Computer Inquiries. Over simplifying the history, the FCC made the telecoms create subsidiaries if they wanted to vertically integrate into markets that were using the telephone lines (data processing and later Internet access). In the Internet context, independent ISPs were guaranteed access to the telephone’s wirelines and the prices for that access were regulated. What happened was a robust ISP market, so no ISP–not the telecoms, the cable companies or independent ISPs–were able to limit Internet content for fear of losing market share. As many people will point out, the cable companies were not regulated like the telecoms (after many years of debate and court cases stretching from at least 1998 through 2005). To level the playing field, the FCC released the telecoms from the Computer Inquiries restrictions in August 2005. Months later AT&T and Verizon agreed to abide to restrictions akin to those under the Computer Inquiries to get their mergers with SBC and MCI approved. Those restrictions expire in 2007, at which time the threat of the telecoms controlling Internet-based services will become very real.

    The wireline owners–the telecoms and cable companies–probably will not drastically restrict Internet content and services because they do not want to devalue the very product they are delivering. However, in markets they want to enter–Internet access, telephony, and broadcast video–they might take steps to hurt competitors either by blocking their competitors–which would be prohibited by the current COPE Act–or by imposing QoS fees to squeeze out competitors. If the wireline owners charge high QoS fees for VoIP and IPTV, they will push all their competitors from the market without physically denying them access to the Internet. (And they simply won’t make their wirelines available to independent ISPs because they would compete in providing Internet access.)

    Whether this problem is very significant is debatable. We might have more competition by having both a telecom and a cable company in each market providing video and voice instead of just one with wireless and satellite providers on the horizen.

    Also, whether the amendments solve the problem in a technically valuable way is also debatable. For example, prohibiting QoS fees–like the Markey amendment and the S-D amendment–might mean an overflow of content demanding enhanced QoS, filling up the priority QoS queues so that no priority is really given.

    Any questions?

12. tkarr Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 7:53 am

    Ignoramus — Again, suggest you read our FAQs.

    Also our threat page.

    Did you visit our “Untangling the Telecom Act” page?

    These were written to make this arcane and technical issue as digestible as possible. Rather than repeating here the simple info that is on those pages, I suggest you click on the links.

    Hope this clears things up.

13. two.point » Blog Archive » Diehard Mac Users Jumping Ship Says:
    June 29th, 2006 at 10:05 pm

    […] Something shocking was announced today. No, I’m not talking about the United States senate screwing over the American people for the greener pastures of big business (I do hope you know what I’m talking about. If not, click on the link and read it first. You don’t even have to come back-it’s that important). […]

14. chair custom director Says:
    July 14th, 2006 at 2:51 pm

    chair custom director…

    I am not sure if this is true but ……

15. » Internet freedom for some Chinese students | News.blog | CNET News.com Says:
    July 20th, 2006 at 11:45 am

    […] Save the Internet Blog Archive Fight for Internet Freedom … The public can win back Internet freedom by ringing up their Senators and telling … 13 Responses to Fight for Internet Freedom Moves to Senate Floor … […]

16. vicodin Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 12:06 am

    vicodin…

    \”I\’ll be out of the office tomorrow, which is Tuesday, and the following day, which is Wednesday. Does that make sense?\”…

17. alprazolam Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 3:15 am

    alprazolam…

    \”Would you jack off to that piece of shit?\”…

18. adult swinger Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 7:37 am

    adult swinger…

    to put into place, etc. In terms of having sex while…

19. dfgdsgbvdfs Says:
    August 2nd, 2006 at 8:34 pm

    jbhffg…

    gdfsgv fsdaf fafdsafas…

20. swinger story Says:
    August 3rd, 2006 at 1:37 am

    swinger story…

    I’m still in shock – major league, brain-cell frying disorientation type shock! Fact is, I have now a whole new slant on the education system or at least, the HOME-education system. Problem is, I now have to make one gynormous decision………

21. swinger party Says:
    August 3rd, 2006 at 6:36 pm

    swinger party…

    Jennifer reached down to touch it. She ran one finger over the firm, hard surface. Brandon leaned over and growled against her skin….

22. qzbnqejfu Says:
    December 21st, 2006 at 11:59 am

    mature…

    nxdtnrjco fpxwgblesu nbzjpqvopq rhedmbe whwpzorww ftctfwai ucutfbgy ppzacqs…

23. Paris Exposed - Paris Hilton Sex Tapes Full Length and Uncut Says:
    August 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 am

    Paris Hilton celebrity sex tapes…

    Paris Exposed - Paris Hilton Sex Tape Videos…

24. Net Neutrality Moves To The Senate by Graham English Says:
    December 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    […] More… […]

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.