Successful Blog

Net Neutrality 10-04-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

Internet Freedom and Innovation at Risk: Why Congress Must Restore Strong Net Neutrality Protection

READ THIS ONE IN ITS ENTIRETY

Net Neutrality rests on three guiding principles:

  • No discrimination against lawful content. Net Neutrality ensures that Internet users have the right to access lawful websites of their choice and to post lawful content, free of discrimination or degradation by network providers. . . . .
  • Equal Internet access at an equal price. Under Net Neutrality, network providers cannot give preferential treatment to their own services at the expense of competing sites consumers want to use. . . . .

    • .

  • Consumers choose network equipment. . . . Net Neutrality prevents network providers from eliminating competing equipment by making it incompatible with their gateway. In the process, it ensures that equipment choice remains in the hands of Internet users, where it rightfully belongs

[ . . .]

In 2005, the Telecoms Captured the FCC and Eliminated Net Neutrality Protection Following the Supreme Court’s Brand X Decision.

[ . . .]

In 2006, big network providers have censored lawful content and blocked their Internet competitors:

  1. Time Warner’s AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com, an advocacy campaign opposing AOL’s pay-to-send e-mail scheme.
  2. BellSouth blocked its customers’ access to Myspace.com in Tennessee and Florida.
  3. Cingular Wireless, run by AT&T, bars access to PayPal to make a payment on Ebay because it has struck a deal with another online payment service, which pays Cingular for that privileged status.

[ . . .]
The United States Senate is currently considering a bipartisan bill offered by Senators Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan, S. 2917, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act [Hyperlink to Snowe-Dorgan bill], that would restore Network Neutrality protections in place before July 2005. The Snowe-Dorgan bill requires that any content, application, or service offered through the Internet be provided on a basis that is “reasonable and non-discriminatory” and equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth of services offered by network owners. It further prohibits network providers from blocking or degrading lawful Internet content. Finally, it leaves the choice for attaching legal devices to networks squarely in the hands of consumers, and not the Telecoms and cable companies.

A Telecom-sponsored alternative bill offered by Senator Ted Stevens, S. 2686, the Communications, Consumer’s Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 [hyperlink to Net Neutrality provision of Stevens bill], permits Net discrimination to continue unabated. The bill provides no protection for Internet users and entrepreneurs. Instead, it merely includes a toothless requirement that the FCC study the Internet market for five years and file annual reports to Congress on the activities of network owners. Telecoms and cable companies are spending tens of millions of dollars in ads and big-dollar contributions pushing the Stevens bill to members of Congress. They view it as a small price to pay for the billions in profits they will reap as gatekeepers for the Internet’s content and users.
[ . . .]

READ THIS ONE IN ITS ENTIRETY

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 10-03-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

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

The telecom slayers [via Eat4Today]

For more than a year, telecom lobbyists, who include former Bill Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, have outgunned Scott and his ragtag army of bloggers, Internet entrepreneurs and consumer-rights activists on Capitol Hill. But on this fall day in his bare-bones office in Washington, Scott is grinning in victory. He knows he has succeeded in tripping up the lobbying goliaths with a simple weapon that couldn’t be more appropriate in the battle over the Internet: a low-budget video posted on YouTube.com.

In the unadorned black-and-white film, college kids sit in front of a webcam and talk about the evils of an Internet without Net neutrality. “Do you want companies to control your clicks?” a goateed young man asks the camera. “This means slower connections to sites that are under competing ISPs,” another says. “Let’s keep the Internet free!” After a guitar solo and a hazy image of the American flag, the video goes black and directs viewers to SavetheInternet.com.

In the first week after it was posted on YouTube on Aug. 17, the video was viewed over 350,000 times, according to figures provided by the site. By comparison, the infamous “macaca” video of Virginia Sen. George Allen calling a man of Indian decent the racial slur, was viewed 200,000 times in roughly the same amount of time. A testament to the power of viral marketing, the Net neutrality video “is doing the work of 30 full-time communications professionals,” [Ben] Scott [coordinator of SavetheInternet] says. “And the best part is, I have no idea who made it.”

In fact, the video was made in a little over an hour by Ben Going, a 21-year-old waiter from Huntsville, Ala., and an aspiring Internet filmmaker. Going says he pieced the video together because he feels that his hobby, his business, his way of life, is under attack. He is not alone. All summer long, hundreds of Web users like Going have flooded the Internet with videos and blog postings. An online petition in favor of Net neutrality has gathered more than 1.1 million signatures, and a letter-writing campaign spawned online has resulted in a flood of letters to Congress members. Barry Piatt, communications director for Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, a leading Net neutrality advocate, says his office has received close to 1 million letters on Net neutrality, “a virtually unprecedented level” of mail for any issue, let alone one as technical as this one. And the “overwhelming majority” of the letters, Piatt says, favor Net neutrality.

[ . . . ]

The battle erupted in the wake of a 2005 Supreme Court ruling, which changed the regulatory classification of ISPs and removed the nondiscrimination protections on the Internet. Facing fewer restrictions on how they could govern the Internet, the likes of AT&T and Verizon made no secret that they intended to create a lucrative Internet fast lane, open only to Web sites that can pay. Critics quickly responded that an Internet where only those who can pay the rent can display their wares will stifle innovation and choice. “Consumers will have all of the choices and selection of a former Soviet Union supermarket,” says Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, a key ally of Net neutrality.

Here is the link for the above referred to YouTube videol: Save the Internet

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE