<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Don&#8217;t Believe the Hype: Google Still Backs Net Neutrality</title>
	<link>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/</link>
	<description>Tracking the battle over Network Neutrality</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 03:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: The Internet Battle.com &#187; Google, Microsoft and Net Neutrality</title>
		<link>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-45703</link>
		<dc:creator>The Internet Battle.com &#187; Google, Microsoft and Net Neutrality</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Mar 2007 03:11:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-45703</guid>
		<description>[...] a buzz which alleges that Google was backing off its full commitment to Net Neutrality legislation, what has been denied recently, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, InterActive Corp., Microsoft and Yahoo! are the principle [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] a buzz which alleges that Google was backing off its full commitment to Net Neutrality legislation, what has been denied recently, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, eBay, InterActive Corp., Microsoft and Yahoo! are the principle [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: seaowl</title>
		<link>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44505</link>
		<dc:creator>seaowl</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 14:10:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44505</guid>
		<description>I think that what we need is a National Policy that ensures true high speed universal networks and access for all. High speed, high capacity networks will eliminate bandwith scarcity and will promote an open Internet. The question is who will build these networks. Public-Private partnerships in each state could be the answere. Projects like ConnectKentucky could serve as a model of joint efforts of state and local govewrnments, labor and private sector companies. Federal and state governments need to stimulate investment with appropriate measures for acountability.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that what we need is a National Policy that ensures true high speed universal networks and access for all. High speed, high capacity networks will eliminate bandwith scarcity and will promote an open Internet. The question is who will build these networks. Public-Private partnerships in each state could be the answere. Projects like ConnectKentucky could serve as a model of joint efforts of state and local govewrnments, labor and private sector companies. Federal and state governments need to stimulate investment with appropriate measures for acountability.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Internet Phone Directory &#187; Comment on Don’t Believe the Hype: Google Still Backs Net &#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44502</link>
		<dc:creator>Internet Phone Directory &#187; Comment on Don’t Believe the Hype: Google Still Backs Net &#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:38:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44502</guid>
		<description>[...] post by toddfucxer and plugin by Elliott [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] post by toddfucxer and plugin by Elliott [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: toddfucxer</title>
		<link>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44499</link>
		<dc:creator>toddfucxer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 05:42:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44499</guid>
		<description>For all those in Minnesota, Norm Coleman does NOT support Net Neutrality.
I recieved this e-mail after signing the petition and making my message



Dear  Mr. Parker  :

 

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding net neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

 

As a member of the Republican High-Tech Task force, I have been working closely on broadband related issues. On balance, I have concerns about proposals to create burdensome and arguably unnecessary regulations on the Internet. The Internet's tremendous growth has been made possible not through increased government involvement, but from opening the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. We should be careful about putting in place regulations that could negatively impact the further development of the Internet. According to a recent International Telecommunications Union study, the U.S. currently ranks 16 th in the world in terms of broadband penetration. Countries such as Korea , Japan and Canada currently rank higher than the U.S. We can ill-afford to fall further behind. Failure to close the gap will have serious consequences on our ability to compete.

 

Rather than a pre-emptive "net neutrality" law, I favor the approach proposed in the Senate communications reform bill (H.R. 5252) as reported on June 28, 2006 by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 15-7. I believe that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring unfettered Internet access for all users and preserving the ability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to offer services without being stifled by burdensome regulations. I am pleased that the Senate bill provides important consumer safeguards in the form of an Internet Consumer Bill of Rights, which among other things would prohibit ISPs from blocking access to the Internet. The bill would provide the Federal Communications Commission power to enforce this bill of rights.

 

You may also be interested to know that as part of my work on broadband issues, I introduced the Rural Renaissance II Act of 2005 (S. 1253) to support rural economic development. This bill would provide rural America loans and grants to rebuild and update its infrastructure, including high-speed Internet, which is necessary to attract new residents and businesses. While I am pleased that this measure has been incorporated into other pieces of legislation, it has not yet become law.


In addition, I am a cosponsor of S. 1294, the Community Broadband Act of 2005. This legislation would allow municipalities to offer Internet broadband services, so long as they abide by state and federal telecommunications laws and do not discriminate against private competitors. I am happy that this legislation has been included in the Senate bill.

 

Because the Senate did not act on H.R. 5252, S. 1253 or S. 1294 in 2005 or 2006, the bill s expired with the close of the 109th congress.  Please know that I will take a close look at these pieces of legislation when it is reintroduced in the 110th congress and that I value your advice.

 

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.

 

Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For all those in Minnesota, Norm Coleman does NOT support Net Neutrality.<br />
I recieved this e-mail after signing the petition and making my message</p>
<p>Dear  Mr. Parker  :</p>
<p>Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts regarding net neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.</p>
<p>As a member of the Republican High-Tech Task force, I have been working closely on broadband related issues. On balance, I have concerns about proposals to create burdensome and arguably unnecessary regulations on the Internet. The Internet&#8217;s tremendous growth has been made possible not through increased government involvement, but from opening the Internet to commerce and private sector innovation. We should be careful about putting in place regulations that could negatively impact the further development of the Internet. According to a recent International Telecommunications Union study, the U.S. currently ranks 16 th in the world in terms of broadband penetration. Countries such as Korea , Japan and Canada currently rank higher than the U.S. We can ill-afford to fall further behind. Failure to close the gap will have serious consequences on our ability to compete.</p>
<p>Rather than a pre-emptive &#8220;net neutrality&#8221; law, I favor the approach proposed in the Senate communications reform bill (H.R. 5252) as reported on June 28, 2006 by the Senate Commerce Committee by a vote of 15-7. I believe that this bill strikes an appropriate balance between ensuring unfettered Internet access for all users and preserving the ability of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to offer services without being stifled by burdensome regulations. I am pleased that the Senate bill provides important consumer safeguards in the form of an Internet Consumer Bill of Rights, which among other things would prohibit ISPs from blocking access to the Internet. The bill would provide the Federal Communications Commission power to enforce this bill of rights.</p>
<p>You may also be interested to know that as part of my work on broadband issues, I introduced the Rural Renaissance II Act of 2005 (S. 1253) to support rural economic development. This bill would provide rural America loans and grants to rebuild and update its infrastructure, including high-speed Internet, which is necessary to attract new residents and businesses. While I am pleased that this measure has been incorporated into other pieces of legislation, it has not yet become law.</p>
<p>In addition, I am a cosponsor of S. 1294, the Community Broadband Act of 2005. This legislation would allow municipalities to offer Internet broadband services, so long as they abide by state and federal telecommunications laws and do not discriminate against private competitors. I am happy that this legislation has been included in the Senate bill.</p>
<p>Because the Senate did not act on H.R. 5252, S. 1253 or S. 1294 in 2005 or 2006, the bill s expired with the close of the 109th congress.  Please know that I will take a close look at these pieces of legislation when it is reintroduced in the 110th congress and that I value your advice.</p>
<p>I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to contact me on any issue of concern to you.</p>
<p>Sincerely,<br />
Norm Coleman<br />
United States Senate</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RichardBennett</title>
		<link>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44496</link>
		<dc:creator>RichardBennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Mar 2007 04:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2007/03/14/do-not-believe-the-hype-google-still-backs-net-neutrality/#comment-44496</guid>
		<description>I'm glad to hear you're on a first name basis with Google's PR guy. I always suspected as much, but it's nice that you've admitted it publicly.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad to hear you&#8217;re on a first name basis with Google&#8217;s PR guy. I always suspected as much, but it&#8217;s nice that you&#8217;ve admitted it publicly.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
