Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Bill in Congress
hip2b2 writes "The US Congress is finally doing something to prevent large bandwidth providers and network operators from charging (or putting restrictions on) competing web and other Internet media content providers. According to this NetworkWorld article, the new bill sponsored by Democratic Representatives Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jay Inslee of Washington state, Anna Eshoo of California and Rick Boucher of Virginia in the House and Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon in the Senate. I am not a big fan of legislation, but, I hope this bill keeps the Internet a freer place." Here is our coverage of the first round.
My prediction is that this bill will never even make it out of committee. Far too many telco lobbyists on K Street to let that happen.
Thalasar
I think the real problem is that some ISPs want to sell "Internet connections" while giving their customers old-style AOL gated network services. There's a word for taking someone's money for a service, and giving them something different in return: fraud.
When someone advertises Internet access, people expect just that. "Net neutrality" is just a fancy term for the way the Internet is supposed to work. Fraudulent "internet service providers" should be sued, civilly and/or criminally, and shut down.
at the end - the Senate bill would only require that net neutrality be "studied", not enforced. This is a tactic employed by both parties - introduce a bill for publicity in one branch of the legislature, introduce a version which is watered down into oblivion in the other, and kill it in committee during the process of "reconciling" the House and Senate versions.
This is particularly often seen with the House bill being the publicity seeker - Reps need to run for office every 2 years...
Using plain ol' text since 1968
I would like to point out that every sentence should have a verb. Except maybe this one.
Karma: Bad (mostly due to all those "In Soviet Russia" jokes)
Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is the exact opposite of most any definition of "free".
These companies were granted the rights to lay cable on public land via legislation in the first place.
Your statement is absolutely absurd, and it is an insult to centuries of struggle for democratic government.
In fact, it is the primary purpose of our government to keep us free, and the primary instrument our government has for that is legislation: legislation that keeps people from harming each other, legislation that keeps companies from distorting a free market, and legislation that establishes institutions that protect us from external threats.
Government legislated control of Internet traffic management is exactly what it means for our government to keep us free.
Now, I'll give you this much: our government sometimes does the wrong thing, either because of misguided people (like you!) or because of outright corruption. But the solution is not to get rid of democratic government and legislation (we had that for a few millennia and it wasn't pretty and certainly not free), the solution is to fix government and make sure the legislation is good legislation.
Great but, why wouldn't the republicans introduce a bill like this? Why does it always have to be the party not in power that has the good ideas?
Same reason your girlfriend looks great when she's trying to get you but then she gets fat when you're "committed".
Wait, slashdot... ok, bad analogy. TCP/IP, Something about a linux distro... ha ha!
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"I am not a big fan of legislation, but..."
I've read this a few times on Slashdot now. It's usually followed by some comment about a special case (or special interest?) where legislation is a Good Thing. This bugs me, because it's hypocritical.
As an example, the entire concept of laissez-faire (free-market) economics (thank you, Adam Smith!) is based upon assumptions that do not hold in the real world. If we want an economy that even approximates a 'free-market', then we need legislation.
Look at Microsoft, or AT&T. Were it not for legislation, there's be no check to their anti-competitive practices. In my opinion (FWIW) the natural end-consequence of a totally free market (in the absence of any control) are cartels - massive companies bribing (what remains of) the government, and helping their cronies and friends.
Call, Fax or write each of the sponser, tell them you like the bill.
Ask them if they know the stance your representitive is taking. Probably not, but if the do it can prepare you to tlak to your representitive.
Contact your congress critter, ask them where they stand. They may not even know about it yet. In your letter be sure to use the correct name of the legislation.
Depending on your state, you may be able to get a face to face with the senator. If you do , for the love of god, dress appropriatly, i.e. Suit.
Go to all the local User groups, even one you wouldn't normally be interested. Ask for 2 minutes in front of the group. Tell them you are orginizing people to get your congress to vote for the bill. Get names and cards of people willing to sign a petition.
Find our how much it cost to get a not for profit.
IF it is too expensive for you to shell out the cash,
Contact the people who signed the petition, tell what you are trying to do, ask for their help.
Once you have your organization set up, use it to get a meeting with your congress person. If you have any business owners that signed your petition, try damn hard to get them to go if you get a face to face. Politician like business.
Any businessman worth theis salt should jump at the opportunity to get a face to face with a politician.
All that isn't as much work as it seems. And yes, it can work. WIll it work? I don't know, depends on other factors because it is politics. I can tell you this: It wo't work if you don't try.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
While I'd like to agree with you, that statement is essentially bullshit. There are a few Democrats who have signed on as sponsors, but I'm reasonably sure that less than half of congressional Democrats would vote for the bill. Telcos, like Hollywood, give generously to both sides of the aisle.
Evcer think about the possibility that not just content providers would have an advantage/disadvantage, but also the consumer's general access? Would it not be possible for Internet providers to give machines running a particular operating system (cough Windows), have a particular processor(ahem Intel), or come from a particular vendor (acch Dell) because these systems are "More capable of network operation" or some other lie like that. Something similar to the Skype/Intel thing a few weeks back (Slashdot) http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/03/04/143024 3
As noted elsewhere in this thread, be very careful about getting too excited about this bill. I'm all for network neutrality, but if the re-introduction of the broadcast flag is the price we pay for it, I'm not sure what to think. We need to stand up to our legislators and get them to pass an honest bill. We're not talking about a little pork project added onto an otherwise good bill. Rather, this bill now is now a complete mess, giving corporations less control over the internet, but more control over digital media. The only difference is which big corporate entities stand to benefit most on the backs of consumers. Do not stand for this kind of garbage, and contact your representative and senator today, because no informed American would want the broadcast flag, even if it is wrapped up in a pretty little bow that says "network neutrality" on it.
Without pressure from constituents, it is even less likely that a bill will ever reach the floor.
Proposed legislation is just as important as legislation that reaches the floor, potentially more so -- once it reaches the floor, most legislators have already decided where they stand on the issue.
Now, in the formative stages of legislative thought, is when it is MOST important to make sure your legislators support your views on issues like this. Waiting until it hits the floor is like waiting to have your brakes fixed until you need to stop to keep from rear-ending someone while barreling down a hill at 80 miles per hour. Our legislature needs 'preventative maintenance' just as much as your car does.
Contact your legislators early. Contact them often.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
AT&T Introduces Privacy+ Tier for Consumers and an NSA Turbo-Speed Tier for the government, at Market-Leading Prices
Wednesday April 26, 6:00 am ET
For $24.95 a month extra, the new Privacy+ Tier offers consumers the ability to feed all data to the NSA at the slowest speeds available. However, for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, the NSA can override the Privacy+ Tier and spy on Americans at Speeds of up to 6.0 Megabits per Second
SAN ANTONIO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--April 26, 2006--AT&T Inc. (NYSE:T - News) today announced a new, higher-privacy tier for its AT&T Yahoo!® High Speed Internet service that meets consumers' growing outrage for allowing the NSA full availability to its backbone. At the same time, it announced a new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier that, for a fee, allows the government to override the newly introduced Privacy+ Tier.
Beginning Monday, May 1, new residential customers who order AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet service online through www.att.com can purchase the Privacy+ Tier -- offering data to the NSA at speeds sometimes as slow as 56k. (other monthly charges and a 12-month term commitment apply). Effective today, the new Privacy+ Tier is available for $24.99, when it is ordered with a qualifying service bundle. Existing AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet customers can upgrade to the Privacy+ service through the company's Web site and take advantage of the current pricing promotion beginning Monday.
"Consumers are craving greater privacy, and now with the AT&T Privacy+ service, they can at least get the satisfaction that the government is going to get their private data at the slowest speeds possible; "Consumers could easily get more privacy from a company that doesn't offer the NSA a fat pipe right onto its backbone, but with the incredible amount of money that the government paid us for that pipe, we just couldn't pass it up. The new Privacy+ Tier, tips the scales back just a little bit in favor of the consumer," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.
Also effective Monday, May 1, the NSA can sign up for the new NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, which for an extra $28.95 per month, per customer, allows the government to override the newly created Privacy+ Tier. "The NSA is craving greater speed to American's private communications, and now with the NSA Turbo-Speed Tier, they can at least get the satisfaction that they can resume domestic spying at the highest speeds possible; "The NSA will be hard-pressed to find this speed at a better price, for a full 12 months, from one of our leading competitors," said Scott Helbing, chief marketing officer-AT&T Consumer.
AT&T Yahoo! High Speed Internet also announced that with the NSA paying an undisclosed, but very large amount of money for access to its backbone data, and with a higher than expected demand from consumers, that it has decided to ask popular web sites, such as Google and eBay to also pay a monthly fee to insure a speedy deliver of all consumer data to these web sites. In that regard, AT&T Yahoo introduced the new Extortion-racket Tier.
Also, in a move that is sure to stun Wall Street, AT&T has announced that they will soon enter the "garbage collection" business.
About the New AT&T
AT&T Inc. is one of the world's largest telecommunications holding companies and is the largest in the United States. Operating globally under the AT&T brand, AT&T companies are recognized as the leading worldwide providers of IP-based communications services to business and as leading U.S. providers of high-speed DSL Internet, local and long distance voice, and directory publishing and advertising services. AT&T Inc. holds a 60 percent ownership interest in Cingular Wireless, which is the No. 1 U.S. wireless services provider with 55.8 million wireless customers. Additional information about AT&T Inc. and AT&T products and services is available at www.att.com.
You will also be charged a monthly FUSF (Federal Un
Ron Paul
That may work in the big cities where you have multiple companies with independent network connections.
But in small towns and rural areas, there may be multiple ISPs, but their internet connections all run through the same connection, usually owned by the telephone company. There is no route around the telephone company in such cases.