Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry
June 30th, 2006 by tkarrEditor’s Note: The following is a guest blog for SavetheInternet.com by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.):
 |
On Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn’t get the job done.
It looks like that’s the fight we’re going to have.
The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer.
It will not stand.
I voted against this lousy bill for two reasons: because net neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society, and both were pushed aside by the Republicans.
Everyone says they don’t want the new world we’re living in to be marked by the digital divide — the term is so clichéd it’s turned to mush — but yesterday was a test of who is willing to ask corporate America to do anything to fix it, and the Commerce Committee failed miserably. Why are United States Senators afraid to say that companies should be expected to foster growth by building out their broadband networks to increase access?
Free and open access to the internet is something all Americans should enjoy, regardless of what financial means they’re born into or where they live. It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. That is a dynamic that would leave some communities with inferior service, higher cable rates, and even the loss of service. Not to mention inadequate internet service — in the age of the information.
This bill was passed in committee over our objections. Now we need to fight to either fix it or kill it in the full Senate. Senator Wyden has already drawn a line in the sand — putting a “hold” on the bill, which prevents it from going forward for now. But there will be a day of reckoning on this legislation soon, make no mistake about it, and we need you to get engaged — pressure your Senators, follow the issue, demand net neutrality and build-out.
June 30th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
[…] Full article here… […]
June 30th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
NET NEUTRALITY Update: Sen. John Kerry Adds His 2 Cents…
I realize I’ve been remiss in keeping you posted about the issues surrounding Net Neutrality. It’s not over and today, Senator John Kerry weighs in on the issue over on the SaveTheInternet blog. You can read more about Net Neutrality on previous post…
June 30th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
I am a Republican and voted against Mr. Kerry when he ran against GW and I would again. I am in most ways opposed to Mr. Kerry’s ideas, plans and views of what America should be. YET this time we agree 10000%. This is an issue I am totaly disgusted to see my party take the wrong side of. The net should be neutral.
Thank you Mr. Kerry for your support of this issue,
Jack Spirko
June 30th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
[…] From Sen. John Kerry, guest-blogging for Savetheinternet.com: On Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn’t get the job done. […]
June 30th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
[…] Link: Stopping the Big Giveaway […]
June 30th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
As a Californian, I applaud Senator Boxer and the other ten intelligent brave senators on the Commerce Committee for supporting the Snowe-Dorgan Net Neutrality proposal. Her leadership continues to inspire…
“Does AT&T Know No Shame?”
Let’s hear it for AT&T
Who tried to screw neutrality,
Net-wise. But Ms. Boxer,
They cannot outfox her
By off’ring her service for free.
________________
Now, who, of those eleven on the committee who voted against the proposal, might be persuaded to change their vote?
June 30th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
[…] Stopping the Big Giveaway By John Kerry […]
June 30th, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry…
Just took a quick break from pixeling to read “Stopping the Big Giveaway” by John Kerry.
It’s so hard to believe that we’re dangling from the ledge of network neutrality, hoping that Big Money’s senators won’t succee…
June 30th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
[…] […]
June 30th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
So thrilled to see Senator Kerry weighing in on this issue! As long as the internet is neutral, people like me can keep blogging on behalf of people like him, and Senator Wyden, and all those Senators who voted the right way on this issue.
June 30th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
[…] SavetheInternet.com wrote to let me know that Senator John Kerry made a guest blog post for the site titled Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry. […]
June 30th, 2006 at 3:37 pm
Senator Kerry on Net Neutrality and the Digital Divide…
Nice blog over at Savetheinternet.com, Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry, where he talks about how the will not let the telecom bill pass without Net Neutrality, and how not having it will affect the digital divide, a……
June 30th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
I am a proud Democrat and voted FOR Senator Kerry when he ran against GW and gladly would vote for him again.
This is why.
Senator Kerry never fails to stand up for what benefits the greater good. He shows a deep and abiding commitment to standing up for the rights of all citizens, and never fails to raise his voice whenever the current administration runs roughshod all over the American people.
Little by little, folks on the other side are beginning to realize that Senator Kerry and other Democrats are tirelessly working to defend their civil liberties, while the guys they voted for are doing anything and everything they can to squelch them. Many proponents of the Democratic platform scoff at the notion of “civil liberties” until their own are attacked. You can bet that when the NSA continues spying on citizens by order of the president, Kerry will defend the citizenry’s right to privacy, no matter who they voted for.
Thank you Senator Kerry, for giving me yet another reason to be proud to have voted for you.
June 30th, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Why The Internet Needs Superman…
The future of this blog and many others… (Save the Internet article).
……
June 30th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
[…] read more | digg story […]
June 30th, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry…
The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer….
June 30th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
[…] UPDATE, June 30, 2006 ― John Kerry (D-Mass) was invited to write for SaveTheInternet.com. He obviously backed the Wyden’s action. […]
June 30th, 2006 at 5:59 pm
[…] Stopping the Big Giveaway- by John Kerry […]
June 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
A majority of citizens regardless of political values seem to agree that the internet should remain neutral but congress members still ignore them. Quite simply put, we should make it know to them that if they vote against network neutrality now, we can just as easily vote the congressman out of office in November. This threat worked after WWI when they tried to keep the confiscated radios and close to election time it can easily work again.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:24 pm
[…] Enlace: Save The Internet (Vía Digg) […]
June 30th, 2006 at 6:30 pm
[…] Para leer la nota completa, el post se encuentra en Savetheinternet.com, y el titulo de ese sitio que se escucha tan sensacionalista, apenas hace justicia a lo que se esta viviendo en este momento en Estados Unidos. […]
June 30th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
The consumers ultimately end up paying for everything including the building of the network. The real question is who should control it. I think it should become a regulated utility. If anyone’s going to be in control of it, it should be the government. If there is not an economic incentive to expand the network, then the government should create one, and then regulate their behavoir, to prohibit this kind of monopolistic manuevering. It seems like the only other answer is to have the content providers invest in the building of these networks, and thereby in a sense acquire some ownership over them, if AT&T and the likes do not see an economic incentive in expanding their networks vs. other opportunities. If there is to be price discrimination between e-commerce companies on the internet, there should be an agency to determine what kind of discrimination is fair. Often landlords of retail locations charge rent that varies by volume of sales/profits/whatever.
In real life, landlords of retail establishments will often make investments into a community surrounding their mall, or improve the road systems nearby, to improve the quality of their location, so they can charge more money to business that occupy that location.
It seems to me that the real problem with a “fast lane”, is there will be an incentive to develop this new internet, and neglect developing the old, until the old one becomes obsolete, and the “fast lane” is more like the only lane that is really useable, resulting in an even more severe monopoly.
Not only that, but the internet has succeeded because it was based on certain principles, such as each piece of information takes the shortest path it can find to get to it’s destination. If one computer goes down, all of the others continue to function and connectivity. Basic principles that have fostered the growth that we enjoy everyday. This goes against sound economic principles, against the technical principles, and against the very principles upon which the internet was founded.
What’s most perverse about this entire thing, is that they’ve convinced so many people that this is actually a good idea. How could this be a good idea? Because it gives them an opportunity to make fist fulls of money that they would otherwise not have access to? and because of this new money they can build the internet more and make it available to more people? ..That’s like me saying that if you give me some mechanism for holding a national treasure hostage, I can get a bunch of money and use that money to feed hungry people who don’t have any place to live.
Yeah right.
The internet has grown and evolved, and will continue to grow and evolve as is needed. When there is a need or desire, that’s a market, and when there is a market for something in America, someone finds a way to provide it in such a way that they can enjoy a profit for doing so.
If no one is willing to pay for this new bandwidth willingly, then they shouldn’t be allowed to force people to build it. People think ebay and google and places like that are going to “make billions” off this new bandwidth, and they should be made to pay for it. Guess what, they shouldn’t be ALLOWED to pay for it, in fact I bet alot of them WANT to pay for it, it’s an opportunity for them squash their competitors. Competing ideas, competing trade markets, competing sources of entertainment and information. Heck so many people offer entertainment for free, and are willing to operate on small budgets, while their competitors would love to be able to crush them with their large budgets.
The reason they can’t do this, is because everyone is entitled to a voice on the internet. While people can pay for more or less bandwidth, and in a sense, more or less volume for their voice already, no one is shut out or muted by this dynamic. A “fast lane” will eventually become the “main lane” and many many people WILL be shut out and muted for no reason. That’s not what the internet’s ever been about, and that’s not what the internet is supposed to be about either.
If sites want more bandwidth, great, let them buy it like they always do.
If consumers want more bandwidth for better access to online media, great let them sign up for it and pay for it like they always do.
This isn’s about an information “fast lane”, this is about an economic “fast lane”, no matter what topological material is used to deliver the data, the speed can be measured as volume_of_data_delivered/time.
If the only benefits enjoyed by this new “fast lane” are enjoyed by cable companies (more money for them) and big online media sites (they can crush budding competition more easily, and capture an audience that would otherwise have broader vision and scope and a more content-rich internet to explore).. and the only benefit consumers will really enjoy is faster access to a less diverse and accessible internet, that also happens to be pricier than it used to be.. where’s the real benefit?
Why create monopoly? Why change the direction of the internet away from an open market of ideas and entertainment, toward a captive audience of commercial-watchers?
This is a big mistake. I hope congress eventually sees that and votes unanimously to support net neutrality.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
I noticed the full-page newspaper ads and the TV ads from “Hand’s off the Internet” (perhaps more correctly described as “Hand’s off the Monopolies”) stating that Google’s net neutrality motive is to limit future competition. The ads have been running almost on every news show in the Washington DC area, which lobbyists do here trying to influence legislation.
A couple of years ago when Google was going public, I wrote a short paper on Google’s business model (at http://www.Gstockreport.com) pointing out every possible weakness with Google’s business model that I heard/thought of – and the cable/phone companies’ arguments are not one of them.
I have no problem with telecom companies making an honest argument that they may “deserve” (it’s really a rather complex economic argument with moving technology on top) some of the money from voice-phone and video delivered to cover the cost of broadband.
But letting monopolist or biopolist broadband providers unilaterally set above market prices is going to end not only in a huge amount of economic monetary losses which can be graphed and estimated, but the secondary externality losses of loss of innovation and loss of information.
In short, either the cable/phone companies are lying or they don’t understand Google or the Internet and have no idea what they are saying is false and don’t care – and I am not sure which is worse: greedy companies (which every company is) or dumb telecoms controlling the Internet.
The telecom companies also have enough money to buy TWO full page ads on the same day in the Washington Post (Tuesday, June 27): one attacking Google and the other attacking a la carte cable prices.
Of course there are costs of government regulation, but the costs must be balanced against the benefits.
Steve Baba
June 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
As a strong GOP backer who raised funds, wrote op-eds and appeared on talk radio in support of George W. Bush in 2004, I stand with John Kerry on this issue.
If you’ve never made a call to your Senator before, this is your day. If you’ve never emailed him or her, the time is now. Muster the energy and do it.
The future of the incredible value-creation machine we know as the Internet is at stake. Put simply, the carriers wish to pick and choose the winners and losers among content providers: they, not you, will decide the next Google. They, not you, will decide which telephony service, which file-sharing software, which instant-messenger you will use.
I can find no simpler way to put it: the carriers seek to turn the Internet into cable television. In doing so, they put America’s technological leadership position at risk, they endanger the immense and fragile Internet ecosphere, and — by extension — they threaten the Internet itself.
Take action today. And tomorrow. And the next day.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
[…] Save the Internet » Blog Archive » Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry […]
June 30th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
[…] Read it in its entirety here. […]
June 30th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
[…] Kerry informed readers that because an amendment to Sen. Ted Stevens’ telecommunications bill was voted down by a vote of 11-11 in the Senate Commerce Committee, the battle would now be fought on the Senate floor. Kerry joins a list of other senators who’ve pledged to vote down or stall Stevens’ bill if no Net Neutrality protections are included. […]
June 30th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
Businesses exist to make money. They are free to choose where they invest their money and should not be told where to do so by our government.
Why is it that Mr Kerry (or anyone else) feels that it is everyone’s right to have internet access? Maybe we should start thinking a little more about the basic needs (food and shelter for everyone) before we supply everyone with 6 meg cable. This is s free market country governed by the laws of supply and demand. Leave it alone and it will sort itself out. There are enough real issues that need to be addressed by our elected officials, they need to leave businesses alone.
I am all for net neutrality but not if it means our already challenged politicians are going to make it another political football.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:45 pm
I only wish John Kerry wasn’t called John Kerry.
I think Mr. President sounds much better for him ;-]
Keep up the good work, Mr. Kerry… You rock!
June 30th, 2006 at 10:43 pm
someone says:
“Businesses exist to make money. They are free to choose where they invest their money and should not be told where to do so by our government.
This is s free market country governed by the laws of supply and demand. Leave it alone and it will sort itself out. ”
I think you missed the monopolies and “natural monopoly” part of your economics course. Even Adam Smith did not take such a “free” to monoplies market view.
July 1st, 2006 at 10:10 am
On one issue, I stand with John Kerry……
As a strong GOP backer who raised funds, wrote op-eds and appeared on talk radio in support of George W. Bush in 2004, I stand with John Kerry on the issue of net neutrality……
July 1st, 2006 at 4:58 pm
Good day. I can’t find email adress to webmaster. You made a mistake in your petition form. Czechoslovakia doesn’t exist since 1992. Now there is Czech republic and Slovak republic. It is in European Union
July 1st, 2006 at 10:17 pm
[…] Sen. Kerry starts his article, “On Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesnt get the job done. It looks like thats the fight were going to have.”read more | digg story […]
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:03 am
[…] Sen. John Kerry actually opened his mouth and said something meaningful and useful after this vote, and then Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)(Actually the longest serving Republican currently in the Senate = OLD) opened his mouth to explain why he voted against it, and well… There’s one company now you can sign up and you can get a movie delivered to your house daily by delivery service. Okay. And currently it comes to your house, it gets put in the mail box when you get home and you change your order but you pay for that, right. […]
July 3rd, 2006 at 10:14 am
[…] I’m happy that there has been progress on the Network Neutrality issue since Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon has placed a Hold on the telecommunications legislation recently approved in committee. It’s also very encouraging that folks with prominence in the senate, like Senator Kerry are now speaking out on the issue. Having said all that, I’m much less happy about the way this thing is shaping up on the Senate Floor. Among the American People the fight is bipartisan, with right wing and left wing amazingly coming together to fight for internet neutrality, but in the Senate it appears now to be a fight divided right down the party line, with only a few exceptions. […]
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:49 pm
Theoretically, a TRUE free market would allow the Pigs to do whatever they wanted regarding charging PAYOLA for quicker (more) bandwidth, AND, competing broadband companies could offer, read my lips: NET NEUTRALITY. Net neutrality would be a “marketing point” for companies who understood its importance, and were happy to receive their monthly cashcow fees for access, but were not interested in making sure their executives got exhorbitant salaries and bonuses, that is, companies who did not pander to Wall St at the expense of the people who put them on the map–us. With such a “free market”, every day would be sort of a consumer’s referendum about what the consumer REALLY wanted. Perhaps Net Neutrality would not be in demand eventually, for the typical consumer in this country really does take what’s served up to him/her, and rarely QUESTIONS AUTHORITY. Or perhaps it would be the overwhelming choice of consumers.
This scenario, of course, is impossible, because the Pigs have already preempted so-called competition for offering broadband service. No one else, not even, I dare say, power companies, are going to get into the act. Local municipalities could get into the act, if the Feds allowed and if they were inclined, and could potentially offer true competition to the Pigs–at reduced rates to financially qualified customers. But local municipal internet srvice (broadband) is another bugaboo to the Republicans and the cable and phone corporations.
It should be mentioned that, notwithstanding charging poor little Google a fee for quicker linkings ove, ie, MSN search, the thing that sticks in the Pigs’ craw is internet phone service, which has already enjoyed decent competition. Vonage ain’t the only game in town. It amazes me that Verizon doesn’t just offer a competing price with the current best deal offered: 20/month. No, the same services from Verizon would be 30/month.
All I can say is: VOTE THE PIGS OUT OF OFFICE IN NOVEMBER!
July 4th, 2006 at 1:47 am
I’m a supporter of Net Neutrality, but I’ll leave my political views out of this for now.
Getting John Kerry associated with savetheinternet.com associates this site with a political party. This is bad, since those who disagree with most of Sen. Kerry’s views will most likely assume that Net Neutrality is something they should be against also. In order to convince people, I would suggest leaving high-visibility candidates views off of this site so that individuals can make informed decisions themselves.
July 4th, 2006 at 6:27 am
After a time of mainstream obscurity, Net Neutrality and Creative Commons issues are being debated mainstream. That is good news.
Now we need a strong Republican candidate as a counter weight to John Kerry.
July 4th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
@Paul Elosegui
Agreed.
July 5th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Even though this man is another self-serving Plutocrat (another wealthy person in so called public service) I support him and his fight against this bill.
IS it not enough that you pay your ISP (Verizon, Time-Warner, etc.) for acces to the internet already? What more do they want????
July 5th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Net Neutrality is indeed a politcal issue. The internet, for one reason or another, has been a bug up the collective Republican wazoo from the get-go–because the internet has elements that, to a rigid mind, must seem frightenly out of control. Occassionally, however, some Republicans, usually of the “libertarian” ilk, “get” that large corporations are basically voracious insects who cannot be stopped from within themselves, but only from without. This means a government for the people, by the people, coming down on these entities when need be.
July 5th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I kind of agree with JimXugle about Kerry swaying Republicans to vote against him. I happen to be a Republican and don’t like Kerry myself, BUT I agree with Kerry when he said “… net neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society.”
Kerry can be used as publicity for the Democrats, but don’t let too many Republicans find out he’s supporting this. If they do, I hope they’re smart enough to see past Kerry himself and listen to what he’s saying.
July 5th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
[…] In summary, net neutrality is about protecting equal access to the Internet for all consumers. In practice, this means that it supports legislation that disallows your Internet provider to limit access to competing services, etc. What does this mean? It means that if you are a Time Warner customer for your Internet and they have a deal with Vonage to provide VOIP as part of a package, they would not be allowed to block Skype in order to limit you to the product they promote. Net neutrality is also about protecting your access to legal content. That means that your broadband provider would not be allowed to block access to things like competitor’s websites or information that may disagree with their “philosophy.” Currently a telecommunications bill without adequate protection for net neutrality has passed the House (H.R. 5252) and the Senate Commerce Committee has passed S. 2686 but an amendment that would have included protections for net neutrality failed 11-11. The bill has now gone to the full Senate. (Senator John Kerry blogs about this on SaveTheInternet.) […]
July 5th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I just called jerk Senator Allen to express how disgusted I am with him voting to kill the internet. The idiot who answered the phone falsely claimed he supported net neutrality by supporting the internet bill of rights. I adamantly explained how that does NOTHING to support net neutrality. The idiot then asked if I was referring to the Snowe-Dorgan amendment. I said yes. She falsely claimed that it would be too much government regulation. I proved that is a lie by explaining that network neutrality has ALWAYS been guaranteed by the Telecommunications Act of 1934. She then just said she would pass the message along and asked for my name and address which I gave. I continued to express how disgusted I am. Since the idiot did not try to rebut me, I didn’t know how to respond better. Any ideas?
July 5th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
I have been thinking of signing up with Verizon for FIOS net service. What would happen if I presented Verizon with my own “contract” demanding I be informed of any throttling or accelerating Verizon does with my internet visits and services?
Sometimes the Democrats ask for too much t a time. At the very least, with or without “net neutrality” becoming a law, a full disclosure law should be written requiring all ISPs to explain, in large print, what they intend to do with the customer’s service, regarding throttling or accelerating that service.
I really believe if full disclosure laws were passed (in the event Net Neutrality is destroyed by the Republicans), there could, and would be true competition: a competitor to ATT, eg, could say in an advert: “Unlike ATT (Verizon, Optimum, etc) we do not slow or speed your connections …”
If ATT found itself losing customers they might have to ask themselves which way they were making more money–taking kickbacks from sped up connections, or keeping customers who’d otherwise leave ATT for a “net neutral” provider. Another interesting outcome might be that all providers offered Net Neutrality at additional cost.
There has been no mention I’ve seen, BTW, of what would payola ISPs do to customers who use, or try to use, proxy services, which prevent the ISP from “knowing” what service is being used, or website visited. All communication between customer and the larger internet is encrypted. I would assume, then, that payola ISPS would not allow the use of proxies.
July 6th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Thank god senator kerry believes in something correct for once.
July 6th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
It is inevitable for the internet to be destroyed in its current form. Three years ago the DoD stated that it viewed the internet as a means for terrorist cells to communicate and command forces internationally. It viewed the net as such a threat that they called for a slow degradation of the current internet as we move towards controlled privatized networks that can be efficiently monitored.
Remember 1984, a novel by a British Intelligence Officer under the pseudonym George Orwell, our future was laid out for us. A network like that of 1984 will be the core of our new secure nation, and there are those who have been working to make it happen. A company named Guinness Telli*Phone has developed prototype Telli*screens and has already developed and beta tested the software that will be central to the network. They trade on the pink sheets where they have evaded all radar thus far as TELI.PK. The website where the software is being tested is http://www.telli.com.
Ideally for the DoD the “internet” will eventually be accessed by embedded internet devices accessing info through a proprietary information network. Mark my Words.
July 6th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
[…] (via Save The Internet.com from Friday, June 30, 2006) […]
July 7th, 2006 at 5:49 am
I’m astonished to see that Senator Kerry is supportive of net neutrality. It’s not difficult to understand why Andy Place who posted above stated, “Thank god senator kerry believes in something correct for once.” Doesn’t he realize the web could be used to end bogus elite rule? Even the New York Times admitted on its front page some months back that ordinary people were using the web to challenge the ruling elite elsewhere. So, it’s surprising but a nice surprise for a welcome change. Hey, I voted for the guy, only because there are no Bronze Medals given in a Presidential Election and there were only two who were stating openly that they were running to win. The others conceded to the media, as per usual, three with good reason, one without.
July 8th, 2006 at 2:44 am
download mp3…
If youre interested, the full text of Blairs speech is here…
July 9th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
Thank you Senator Kerry and all the other senators supporting net neutrality. This issue is huge. The republicans in Congress are trying to take away all our freedoms. They want everything to be commercial. If they keep this up, we will have no freedoms left.
Every senator that has come out against net neutrality is republican. Only one senator for net neutrality is republican.
People need to wake up and realize that today’s GOP is selling us out. I live in NH and more and more people are realizing this and turning away from the party they have traditionally supported for generations. Now they say they used to be republican.
We need to preserve net neutrality and we need to take Congress out of the hands of the biggest government conglomerate we have ever seen in out nation.
America is not a business and Congress is not a board of directors.
July 10th, 2006 at 11:14 am
[…] As a resident of Massachusetts, I am very proud of Senator Kerry’s stance on net neutrality and his recent blog entry on SavetheInternet.com. I would encourage you to visit the Senate Map on Save the Internet and make sure your senators are in favor of net neutrality. Some senators have not done the research, or do not even understand the Internet and need to be informed. One such senator is Republican Ted Stevens. […]
July 14th, 2006 at 4:36 am
I am a Democrat, but I used to be able to respect Congressional Republicans (even though I often didn’t agree with them). Many of the characters calling themselves ‘Republicans’ in today’s Congress today should really just start a new party; instead of the GOP (Grand Old Party), how about the BAT (Bullies and Thugs) Party? I only hope there are enough principled Republicans left to stand with Kerry and the Democrats on this issue.
August 24th, 2006 at 6:29 pm
[…] John Kerry is FOR Net Neutrality http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/06/30/stopping-the-big-giveaway-by-john-kerry/ […]
September 12th, 2006 at 10:12 pm
[…] Sen. Kerry starts his article, “On Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn â??t get the job done. It looks like thatâ??s the fight weâ??re going to have.”read more | digg story […]
September 15th, 2006 at 8:05 pm
[…] Stopping the Big Giveaway - by John Kerry The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer. […]
October 27th, 2006 at 1:35 am
[…] Page Summary: It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. As long as the internet is neutral, people like me can keep blogging on behalf of people like him, and Senator Wyden, and all those Senators who voted the right way on this issue. Quite simply put, we should make it know to them that if they vote against network neutrality now, we can just as easily vote the congressman out of office in November. If there is not an economic incentive to expand the network, then the government should create one, and then regulate their behavoir, to prohibit this kind of monopolistic manuevering.read more | digg story […]
November 18th, 2006 at 3:20 am
money and finance…
money and finance money and finance money and finance uzlcfxnwnlw…
November 19th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
live adult video chat…
live adult video chat live adult video chat live adult video chat agdprqwsyo…
November 21st, 2006 at 2:11 am
[…] Via a link from PostSecret, John Kerry blogs for Save the Internet. Save the Internet is a site dedicated to keeping Americans informed about “Net Neutrality,” which might be erroded by Telecomm companies in cahoots with Congress soon if us and the flip-flopper don’t do something about it. In short: Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network’s only job is to move data - not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership. […]
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:51 pm
adult education montreal…
adult education montreal adult education montreal adult education montreal adult education montreal pjdunhn…
July 31st, 2007 at 2:02 pm
texton car…
news…
July 31st, 2007 at 2:03 pm
toyota tundra access cab…
news…
October 30th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
rola honda crv…
news…
October 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
s r car sales…
news…
December 9th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
[…] Link: Stopping the Big Giveaway […]