Save The Internet - Keep It Neutral

[gerrymo]

TBQH, you're wasting you time. If they want control of the net they'll get it. Why? Because the US Government already want info on what people read, what they search, etc, etc. If any large Crop will take control and pass on the info, they've got the net. No end of lobbying, protesting, etc, will stop it.

But they will have serious problems with the other countries, the EU, etc, as they have very strict competion regulations. So it may happen within the US, but outside I think thye'll have BIG problems. All 3 of my servers are within the US, but would be promptly moved to a non-controlled country. 10s of 1000s of others would do the same, bankrupting US companies. But would the US government care? Not one bit, as long as they can spy on the users.

[Techdomain]

yes - australia (and yes, I know we are only a small player on the international scene really) has controls and regulations to ensure that there is enough competition, and also no one owns too much media... hopefully those rules help out!

[gerrymo]

I'm in Scotland so part of the EU, so the competion regulations are tight to say the least.

The US is the biggest player where the net is concerned, but it's now too big for them on their own to try to control. If they try to put too mch control in the US on it, companies have to 3 choices: Pay Up, Go Bust, or Relocate to a cheaper country with no control freaks. I think most would choose the latter option.

[bloc]

Maybe that will happen..but still: if this can be stopped in US before coming to that, the better.  We don't know what effects such a direction will have on the rest of the world. If no-one complained in US, the rest would eventually wonder why imho.

The more protests, the more attention around it, the better. Then the rest of the world knows what the USERS thinks, not just the big US companies (which is pretty obvious anyway )

[mnichols7]

Yeah, I have heard of this already, and I for one will post links and a topic on my site as well.  My host are located in Canada, so maybe I will be fine.

[carnage]

If they do that to the internet... then the fredom to express your self and the right ot an opinion and all the freedom the internet provides gone, plus all the little people such as at least 50% off this site users sits will be shut down... the little company will just go under.
not only this i think if that happened the internet would be pointless and people would go back to phones and writing letters and going to comunity catherings and sunday school :\

[anunlike]

Net Neutrality Wins More Senators
http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060901NetNeutralityWinsMoreSenators.html


The Net Neutrality movement is gaining support among U.S. senators. At the close of the August recess, the SaveTheInternet.com coalition added four previously uncommitted legislators to the cause.

According to the website, that brings the tally to 26 senators in favor of the Snowe-Dorgan amendment to Senator Ted Stevens' sweeping telecom bill. There is ground left to make up, though, with half the Senate still uncertain.

The split is almost entirely according to party lines. All 14 of the senators who've made a stance against Net Neutrality are Republican. Of the 26 senators in favor, 24 are Democrat. Fifty-six are still uncommitted, and four straddle the fence.

The SaveTheInternet.com coalition reports that activists "took to the pavement" in 25 cities nationwide this week to deliver petitions to Senate members in their hometowns during recess. The outcry was enough to convince Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), James Jeffords (I-Vt.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to pledge their support.

"We are extremely pleased that both of our New York Senators are pro Net Neutrality," said Jessica Findley, a freelance graphic designer from Brooklyn, who helped organize the New York City rally. In New York, 50,000 petitions were delivered to Schumer.

It is unknown if Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) was persuaded by the crowd outside her Detroit office, where David Pettit of the Public Interest Research Group made his appeal.

"Powerful telephone company lobbyists will tell you one of two things - both of which, of course, are false," said Petit. "First, they will tell you that the Stevens bill already preserves Net Neutrality. This is completely not true. Second, they might say â€ËÅ"don't regulate the Internet. Let the market decide.' ... All we want to do is reinstate the Net Neutrality principles that guarantee that the Internet treats everyone fairly."

This week, petition delivery events were held at senators' offices in Baltimore; Boston; Charleston, W.Va.; Columbus, Ohio; Eau Claire, Wis.; Fayetteville, Ark Honolulu; Louisville, Ky.; Madison, Wis.; Milwaukee; Montpelier, Vt.; Orlando; Newark, N.J.; Portland, Maine; Providence, R.I.; Seattle; Spokane, Wash.; and Wilmington, Del.

[anunlike]

Stevens Concedes 'Net Neutrality' May Kill Telecom Bill This Year
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-RHPR1158175456497.html


Senate Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, publicly acknowledged that the telecommunications legislation he has championed for more than a year is unraveling.

"Net neutrality was the most hotly debated portion of our communications bill, and it is the subject that is holding up the communications bill," he said at a confirmation hearing for FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, who has been nominated for a second term at the agency.

The measure would not mandate network neutrality regulations to bar high-speed Internet providers from blocking or degrading competing content. But it would require the agency to examine the issue and protect the rights of consumers to access Web sites unimpeded.

The lack of stricter neutrality safeguards, however, has splintered the Senate and the communications industry.

The network neutrality issue "may well lead to [the telecom measure's] total defeat this year after 19 months of work on that bill," Stevens said of his measure, which his committee narrowly approved in June but which has not reached the floor.

Stevens’ downbeat assessment came just days after a top Stevens aide said that the chairman remained â€Ã...“optimisticâ€Ã, he could round up the 60 votes needed to cut off a possible filibuster â€ââ,¬Å" and thereby bring the bill to the Senate floor.

â€Ã...“He's working with Sen. [Daniel] Inouye to get the bill up," the Commerce Committee’s majority staff director, Lisa Sutherland, told a briefing for communications attorneys last Friday.

However, at the same briefing, James Assey -- counsel to Hawaii's Inouye, the senior Democrat on the committee -- did not sound as optimistic that a vote would occur before Congress adjourns for the year.

"We just have to wait and see," said Assey, noting that the Senate bill is multifaceted as compared to telecom overhaul legislation passed by the House in early June.

Addressing speculation that Stevens may try to divide the bill and attach it to different appropriations bills, Sutherland replied, â€Ã...“If he's doing that, it's news to me.â€Ã,

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., has placed a procedural "hold" on the bill and vowed to block it until it contains strong network neutrality provisions to keep Internet providers from creating so-called high speed lanes and offering favored customers faster service for a price.

"We would like the opportunity to get the bill up and let Wyden offer an amendment," Sutherland said. "If we don't get a bill up at all, there's no net neutrality."

Meanwhile, Tuesday's hearing exposed deep fissures on other matters when Stevens expressed concern about Martin's plan for so-called reverse auctions.

Under the approach, telecom carriers capable of offering service with the lowest upfront costs would be eligible for subsidies under the universal service fund, which subsidizes telecom offerings in rural and impoverished areas.

Stevens warned that rural carriers have "serious concerns" about the idea because they fear that national carriers will enter their markets with low-overhead wireless services and win over their subsidies.

Martin countered that his plan would "develop a system that encourages the most efficient technology." But Stevens was not buying that argument and declared that "existing local providers are going to be wiped off the map -- quick."

Martin also drew criticism from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who accused him of favoring large companies over consumers regarding rules for media ownership and network neutrality.

Boxer accused the FCC of spiking a 2004 report on the benefits of locally produced television news to communities. Martin, a commissioner at the time, said he was not aware of the report but would look into it.

Martin also faced tough questioning from Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., over media ownership and appeared to backtrack on his earlier positions.

The FCC chief supported a 2003 agency decision to dramatically loosen those rules. But on Tuesday, given increases in consolidation, Martin said he is no longer comfortable with the decision.

He recently announced that the agency would conduct six public hearings as it embarks on a court-ordered review of the 2003 decision regarding the concentration of media ownership.

The hearing also reviewed the appointment of John Kneuer, acting assistant chief of the Commerce Department's National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to head the agency. NTIA advises the White House on communications policy.

While Martin was the focus of the hearing, Boxer criticized Kneuer for failing to provide the launch date of a $1 billlion grant program to foster cross-jurisdictional communications for emergency responders.

Boxer instructed Kneuer to provide the date within a week, warning, "We don't have time here."

[rikardob]

thats for sure... and I might even GO OUTSIDE again!!!!!

I've already got that game on my computer.