Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 11-22-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Strains Showing in Longtime Friendship
Telecom firms have supported Rep. Dingell, and until recently, the incoming House committee chairman has supported them [via Imus Show Blog]

WASHINGTON, November 21, 2006 — Rep. John Dingell greeted the Republican-drafted telecommunications bill, designed to speed the Bell companies’ entry into the television marketplace, with sarcasm and cynicism.

“We have before us, then, a piece of the purest special interest legislation, something which will benefit the few at the expense of the many,” the Michigan Democrat said on June 8, as the House debated the bill.

“This legislation is going to benefit the special interests, particularly the cable and the telephone industry,” said Dingell, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Dingell lost that battle; the bill passed the House overwhelmingly, 321-101. Even among Democrats, 106 voted for the final bill, with 92 opposed.

But with Democrats taking control of Congress in the midterm elections, the 2006 telecommunications overhaul is almost certain to be killed. Democrats are not likely to cooperate with any Republican-led push for the measure in December’s post-election session. Despite the wide margin in the House, supporters of the telecom bill doubt they can secure enough votes in the Senate for passage this year.

And with Dingell set to reclaim in January the gavel of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which he vigorously ruled from 1981 until 1995, the shape of telecommunications legislation in 2007 could be vastly different.

The likely death of the telecom bill is a major defeat for the Bell companies — AT&T Inc., BellSouth, Verizon Communications and Qwest Communications International — and their lobbying arm, the U.S. Telecom Association, for whom passage of the bill was the key legislative priority. It would have allowed the Bell companies to string cable television wires without having to get approval by local governments.

But for the Bell companies, the most bitter irony in this turn of fate in the telecom wars is this: John Dingell was once one of their closest friends. He took their campaign contributions and, for more than two decades, promoted their legislative priorities on Capitol Hill. It’s a relationship that soured only within the past year.

On the night of the Bells’ pyrrhic victory in June, Dingell was acerbic as he walked off the House floor, just past 10 p.m. The House Rules Committee had denied the full House a vote on an amendment he authored to restore cities’ control of their rights of way. A reporter asked him why that happened.

“This was decided by a very unprincipled lobby,” Dingell said.

“But you used to be friends with the Bells,” the reporter remarked.

“I have found that I was, but they were not.”

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-21-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

On Net Neutrality: Congress Wakes Up to a Watchful Public

On the issue of Net Neutrality, companies like AT&T, Verizon, BellSouth and Comcast outspent public interest advocates on a scale of 500 to 1 – pushing Congress to remove the longstanding nondiscrimination rules that enabled the Internet to become the greatest vehicle for free speech and economic innovation.

[ . . .]

As much as anything, the election sent a message to Congress to stop currying favor with moneyed interests and return to governing in the public interest.

Near the top of this new agenda will be restoring Net Neutrality. Many in Congress came to this realization after receiving more than a million letters from concerned citizens urging them to maintain a free and open Internet.

Whereas before, the phone companies had been confident that Congress would simply sign-off on industry-written legislation. Now — as the 109th Congress comes to a close — no member can vote with the telecom cartel without feeling the full heat of public scrutiny.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

New Congress Likely To Support Net Neutrality

Internet neutrality proponents believe that the recent change in Congress is likely to boost their efforts to push legislation that would prohibit tiered access to the Internet.

[ . . .]

“The outlook for better, more public-spirited Internet legislation is now quite good,” the group said through a prepared statement.

In fact, U.S. Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who proposed legislation supporting their cause, is set to lead telecommunications policy for the House majority in 2007. So is U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a Michigan Democrat, who said he would propose a telecommunications reform bill with public interest and net neutrality in mind.

Dingell is positioned to take over as the chair of the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, which held hearings on the issue during the last congressional session. The committee presides over telecommunications and Internet policies. Markey will chair a subcommittee devoted exclusively to those issues.

SaveTheInternet also sees hope in the U.S. Senate, where all representatives who supported net neutrality were re-elected and several challengers who came out in favor of the issue were also elected.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-17-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Japan sets up panel to study Net neutrality

TOKYO (Reuters) – The Japanese government on Wednesday set up a panel to discuss Internet network neutrality — a concept that has stirred heated debate in the United States — and study how the surging popularity of free file-sharing services such as YouTube.com is impacting the infrastructure.

[ . . . ]

Earlier this year, Japan’s ministry put together a report on future competition policy in the industry, in which it made some recommendations on the Internet neutrality issue.

The report gave suggestions such as charging extra fees to heavy Internet users to lighten the cost burden on network providers, while making sure that end-users and content providers would be able to access the network freely.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-16-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

So How About That New Congress? [via bj]

Lets do the micro first. Conrad Burns and George Allen are gone. Burns and Allen both opposed network neutrality and generally supported deregulating telecom, cable and media companies. Burns in particular was a true friend to the large broadcasters. He opposed low-power FM, supported deregulating big media companies, and generally did his best to advance the agenda of the folks I oppose.

On the flip side, Allen and Burns did support white spaces. But even so, for folks who support media and telecom reform that limits rather then enhances corporate power, their departure makes life a heck of a lot easier.

Looking to the Committee Chairs and leadership – Inouye supported overturning the FCC’s dereg in 2003-04. Inouye has also supported net neutrality, opening up the broadcast “white spaces” to unlicensed use, and protecting local franchising. While I would not call Inouye or Reid enthusiastic champions for issues I care about the way Dorgan and Feingold have been, I do think they will support positive reform on both media and telecom. They are likely to allow legislation in favor of network neutrality, low power FM, and limiting further media consolidation proposed by other members. Whether they will make such legislation a priority remains to be seen.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 11-15-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

We Neutrally Reserve the Right to Charge Anything at Anytime

So the first anti-net neutrality ad hit San Diego this week, claiming that unless we allow the ISPs to prioritize certain packets based upon how much the sender is willing to pay, the consumer will be forced to pay more.

I’m a bit confused…we consumers are already paying more. The ISPs already make people to pay for their internet access. And if you use a lot, such as by being a big company or a popular blogger, then your ISP starts charging you more because of all the traffic. And who pays for it? Certainly not the person providing the content. No, the costs get passed on to the consumer, of course. Whether it is through direct cost by the amount the site charges for their services or indirect cost by their charging the advertisers more for their support which the advertisers pass along, the person who pays when a site becomes popular and starts drawing traffic is the consumer.

Want to know what you can do?
MA Bell Monopoly Versus the Free Internet — Tell the FCC Net Neutrality Is Not Negotiable

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE