Network Neutrality

[Highwayman]

I did view it Bubba. There are two sides to this.

Hey Lurker, remember these posts from a couple of months ago? This is a good example of Network Neutrality at work. We’re going to see more of this problem with movies on line and other high bandwidth applications.

Originally Posted by lurker

I clicked on live.com and it's waiting to load something.... it still's waiting; so I entered a search word anyway. It's still waiting to load something.

Gooooooogle's claim to fame is it's bandwidth economy. Any little old computer can Gooooogle through any little connection.

Micro (I still have to admire any man who'll name a company after his sex organ) Soft just can't understand the negative aspects of bloat.

It's still loading something..... so I Gooooogle'd 'live.com' and got "Server is too busy." Thanks Google.

Originally Posted by lurker

Welp, it finally werked and consumed lots of ram & bandwidth to do simple tasks.....

A typical MicroSoft MindSet: consume the resource...

Microsoft Launches Revamped Search Engine

One solution is to charge Billy boy a premium to a fast lane so his stuff works properly. The other is to do nothing and his stuff gets choked and blocked. By forcing neutrality in access charges (which seems to the big beef at MoveOn.org) anyone that comes up with a new and improved whatever that requires extra bandwidth will never get it off the ground because it won’t work right.

As for the telephone service example there are laws about equal access. A few years ago it was discovered some privately owned pay phones (remember those old things?) were blocking access to some long distance providers and forcing users to use a more expensive service. The FCC came down hard on those folks.

There’s no reason why equal access can’t be enforced and still allow ISP’s to have a tiered rate system for those bandwidth hogs.

[lurker]

Anyone remember when SBC & Ya-hoo crawled in bed together and were promising to deliver a "walled in garden of eden" to their subscribers? Yeah, right... I'm sure it was more like a cattle pen.

[Highwayman]

OK guys, I give up. Just pardon me if I don’t share your confidence in the ability of Congress to make things better by more regulation.

[lurker]

Originally Posted by Highwayman

OK guys, I give up. Just pardon me if I don’t share your confidence in the ability of Congress to make things better by more regulation.

The Markey Network Neutrality Amendment, which was introduced in the House Telecom & Internet Subcommittee and defeated, in the Commerce Committee and defeated, and will be introduced ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE, PROBABLY (today) THURSDAY, MAY 4, is straightforward. In part, it says,

Each broadband network provider has the duty—
(1) not to block, impair, degrade, discriminate against, or interfere with the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access, use, send, receive, or offer lawful content, applications, or services over the Internet . . .

Sure it will be difficult to make effective enforcement rules -- the ILECs and Cablecos will fight this every step of the way. The FCC (which would make the rules) will have its hands full. But it is so much better than the current Barton compromise, which does not protect content from discrimination, does not give the FCC power to make rules, and does not specify what happens if the FCC decides that an incident is not a violation of the Principles.


In plain English:

"These are complex issues. If you are not mentally up for it, there is a simple proxy that will work just as well as a firm grasp of the technical and business issues: "Figure out what the ILEC'S & Cablecos want (they will tell you) and then try to stop them."

Try to stay with this video until the end (about 15 minutes).

April 26, 2006- Rep. Markey Introduces the amendment on Net Neutrality
http://markey.house.gov/index.php?op...476&Itemid=138

David Isenberg's blog:
http://www.isen.com/blog/

[Bubba]

This is the content of a full page ad in the New York Times that the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org are putting together.

When it comes to
protecting the Internet,
the Christian Coalition
and MoveOn
respectfully agree.

The Christian Coalition and MoveOn have joined together to
keep AT&T from controlling what you see and do online.
Imagine Yahoo opening at a faster speed on your computer than Google because they paid AT&T a premium price. Or some
music provider that AT&T owns moving quickly while iTunes downloads at a snail’s pace. That’s what’s at stake in a battle
heating up in Congress. Internet operators like AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast want Congress to permanently eliminate “Net
Neutrality,” the basic rule that prevents these companies from deciding which Web sites open easily on your computer. It’s a
plan to erect tollbooths on the information superhighway. As organizations dependent
on a free Internet to speak with our members and with the world, we adamantly
oppose the elimination of Net Neutrality.
The free and open Internet has empowered everyday people across the political
spectrum to speak out, to be heard and to effect change. Imagine an Internet
provider which didn’t like the views of MoveOn.org Civic Action or the Christian
Coalition. Without Net Neutrality, they could legally slow down our sites or block
them altogether.

The SavetheInternet.com Coalition is led by Free Press and includes the Christian
Coalition, MoveOn.org Civic Action, Gun Owners of America, Craig from
Craigslist, small businesses, consumer advocates, and hundreds of other organizations. More than 700,000 people have
signed a petition to Congress. Sign the petition. Call your representative and senators. Join us. This isn’t an issue of Right or
Left. It’s an issue of Right or Wrong.

New York Times
editorial,
May 2, 2006:
“This democratic Internet
would be in danger if the
companies that deliver
Internet service changed the
rules so that Web sites that
pay them money would be
easily accessible, while littleguy
sites would be harder
to access and slower to
navigate. Providers could
also block access to sites
they do not like.”


For more information, or to join 700,000 Americans in signing a petition to Congress, visit:
www.SavetheInternet.com

[Detector]

I'll agree this all sounds bad but I'm at a bit confused. There seems to be some misinformation or I'm missing something.

First off, while your ISP can make certain sites of choice load faster I don't think they can make others load slower. Second, I would think blocking certain sites altogether unless they got paid would be extortion and against the law.

[Bubba]

This might help explain. I got this in an email from the CEO of eBay. I thought it did a good job of explaining it.



As you know, I almost never reach out to you personally with a request to get involved in a debate in the U.S. Congress. However, today I feel I must.

Right now, the telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet. It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future.

The phone and cable companies now control more than 95% of all Internet access. These large corporations are spending millions of dollars to promote legislation that would divide the Internet into a two-tiered system.

The top tier would be a "Pay-to-Play" high-speed toll-road restricted to only the largest companies that can afford to pay high fees for preferential access to the Net.

The bottom tier -- the slow lane -- would be what is left for everyone else. If the fast lane is the information "super-highway," the slow lane will operate more like a dirt road.

Today's Internet is an incredible open marketplace for goods, services, information and ideas. We can't give that up. A two lane system will restrict innovation because start-ups and small companies -- the companies that can't afford the high fees -- will be unable to succeed, and we'll lose out on the jobs, creativity and inspiration that come with them.

The power belongs with Internet users, not the big phone and cable companies. Let's use that power to send as many messages as possible to our elected officials in Washington. Please join me by clicking here right now to send a message to your representatives in Congress before it is too late. You can make the difference.

Thank you for reading this note. I hope you'll make your voice heard today.

Sincerely,

Meg Whitman
President and CEO
eBay Inc.

[lurker]

I read where SBC/AT&T have seduced Kansas into their next generation of connectivity. It sounds good, until one realizes that having 1 Gig from only one source will stiffle all other options for broadband.

The power of money bends Congress, the FCC and also State regulatory commissions. Network Neutrality is a MUST!

[Bubba]

Got this in an email.....

It's time. Next week, the full House of Representatives votes on whether to protect Internet freedom. Your representative, Jerry Moran, needs to hear solid constituent support for protecting Net Neutrality—the Internet's First Amendment.

Here's an important detail. Next week, House members will be voting on a larger law governing our nation's communications policy—and the current version of this bill guts Net Neutrality. So every representative needs to hear in no uncertain terms that they should vote against this proposed law if it is not changed to protect Net Neutrality.

Can you call Rep. Moran to say vote "no" on the COPE telecommunications law if it doesn't protect Net Neutrality?

Here are the numbers—it's best to call the Washington, D.C. office and then your local office:

Congressman Jerry Moran
Phone: 202-225-2715
District Offices:
Hays: 785-628-6401
Hutchinson: 620-665-6138
Salina: 785-309-0572


Please click here to let us know you called and to share how it went:

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1815&id=78...Q1huUAWNzQ&t=3

Some tips when calling:

1) If the staffer is making a tally of constituent calls, make sure they have a category specifically for "Vote no on the COPE telecom law if it doesn't protect Net Neutrality." Otherwise, your representative may get a diluted message and miss the point.

2) If they ask for more details, you can urge your representative to support the bipartisan Sensenbrenner-Conyers Net Neutrality amendment (HR 5417) which passed the House Judiciary Committee last week with a powerful 20-13 biparttisan majority. And if that fails, they should vote against the entire bill.

3) If you get a voicemail option, leave a message. They will get it.


Thanks for helping to save the Internet.
–Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team
Friday, June 2nd, 2006

P.S. Here are two informative videos about this Net Neutrality issue:

YouTube video—tollbooths on the information super-highway
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1838&id=78...Q1huUAWNzQ&t=4

Moby speaks out on Net Neutrality in Washington, DC
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1841&id=78...Q1huUAWNzQ&t=5