JPF Home Page Forums General Messages Brian Austin Whitney Blog Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006

Hi Folks,

I had an entirely different blog entry for today, but I finally got the info I need to make sure you guys all understand the VERY important vote happening in two days. This is serious stuff and I hope all of you will read this and understand how much is at stake here. Big thanks to Mary Boyle at Common Cause and Jenny Toomey of the Future of Music Coalition for the info and alert.
------------------------------------
House Judiciary Committee Will Cast Crucial Vote on Internet’s Future on Thursday

H.R. 5417, the Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act, has big implications for Internet
The House Judiciary Committee on Thursday will cast a vote with huge implications for the future of the Internet as we know it. Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and ranking minority member Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) are co-sponsors of H.R. 5417, the Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act.

Their bipartisan bill would guarantee our right to “net neutrality” -- the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they choose and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service provider.

“Net neutrality” may sound obscure and wonky. But it is crucial if the Internet is to remain a forum for us to talk to one another, to access web sites for information, to read, write and comment on blogs, to engage in political forums, or to donate money and learn about political candidates. For this reason, groups as diverse as Common Cause, Consumers Union, the Christian Coalition, and Gun Owners of America strongly support “net neutrality.”

And there is a real risk that telephone and cable companies, which provide access to the Internet for 95 percent of U.S. consumers who go online, will use their market power to transform the Internet into largely a vehicle for selling us things – entertainment, games and goods. And even then, only those goods and commodities from which they can extract the most profit will be most accessible.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) used to protect our rights to access any information we wanted on the Internet. But we lost those protections in August 2005, when the FCC decided to change the way it enforced rules dealing with the Internet. As a consequence, there is now no rule or regulation that will prevent the phone and cable companies from doing what they've said they want to do: charge content providers for the right to be on their Internet pipes, and make special deals with some companies to ensure their sites and services work faster and are easier to find by Internet users.

It was a free and open Internet, without barriers to entry that made it possible for young, unknown entrepreneurs to develop Google, Yahoo, eBay and many other innovative businesses. But access to the Internet will be too costly for the next generation of innovators.

And nonprofits, bloggers and a host of other groups that have Internet web sites also will be left out in the cold. Rather than an Internet where any idea is welcome and where only our imaginations limit what we can discover, we will be left with an Internet that is more like cable TV. Those providing information and opinion will be hard to find and slower to access. Entertainment options will largely be determined by the phone and cable companies.

The Sensenbrenner-Conyers bill will ensure that anti-trust law covers the actions of the providers of high-speed Internet by specifically banning discriminatory practices that affect our rights to access the information we want.

Here's some very important Questions and Answers! Please Read!

Q1: Why is this important now?

A1: Congress is currently drafting a bill that would revise and update the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The House Commerce Committee defeated attempts to strengthen the bill with strong provisions on net neutrality. That’s why the House Judiciary vote this week is so important. It gives Congress another chance to protect our rights to a free and open Internet.

Q2: Is this a real threat?

A2: It's not just a threat: There have already been instances of Internet providers blocking access to Internet applications that allow you to access your company's network, share files with peers - even send large attachments (like digital photos) in your email. In 2005, the FCC sanctioned a rural telephone company named Madison River Communications for blocking its DSL customers from making phone calls over the Internet. Also last year, Telus, a telephone company in Canada, blocked its customers from visiting a website sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.

Foreign governments have also sought to block certain web pages and Internet applications. In China, the government uses sophisticated software to control which websites can and cannot be accessed. Bloggers receive government warnings for writing words like 'freedom' and 'democracy.' Web searches for sensitive keywords often lead to the equivalent of an Internet black hole.

There is nothing in rule or law today that protects us from these abuses. Telephone and cable companies could legally restrict access to any website or Internet application they choose whenever it suits their bottom-line economic, or even political, interests. The industry’s claim that this is “a solution in search of a problem” is shortsighted and untrue.

Q3: Are there legitimate reasons why an Internet provider would block content or an Internet application?

A3: Yes. Internet providers should be able to block spam emails, as well as viruses that could harm their networks and their customers' computers. But industry interests argue that they should be able to block anything that interferes with "quality of service." That definition is too broad. It's possible that a provider could decide to block Google or Yahoo in favor of its own search engine, saying it's in the interest of better "quality of service."

Q4: What are some ways I might be affected?

A4: Providers can restrict or disrupt your access to web content and applications in a variety of ways, including:

Discriminating against competitors' services: A provider could make sure that preferred content or applications load faster and more efficiently while competing services are slow or spotty. That would effectively create a tiered Internet - with a fast lane for those who will pay, and a slow lane for everyone else.
·
Limiting diversity of content: A provider can enhance its own web content and services by featuring prominent menus, program guides, start screens, etc. while systematically excluding competing content.
·
Favoring commercial services: The nonprofit and noncommercial sector could be distinguished from the for-profit sector of the online community in terms of services offered, and would suffer because they cannot compete in an environment where they have to pay for better service.
·
Restricting Internet telephone: Services that allow you to make low-cost, long-distance telephone calls using a high-speed Internet connection (sometimes called VoIP, or Voice over Internet Protocol) are becoming more and more popular. But traditional phone companies who are now getting into the Internet business don't want to lose their customers to Internet phone companies like Vonage and Skype. However, there is nothing stopping them from using their gatekeeper status to block their competitors.

Q5: Will this legislation turn control of the Internet over to government regulators?

A5: No. This legislation simply makes it unlawful for an Internet service provider to block, impair or discriminate against any lawful Internet content or applications. It does not give the government any special rights or control over Internet traffic.
-----------------------------------------

So now you know. Please take appropriate action as you see fit.

Brian

Brian you should run for High Office. However be warned that Pandora's Box has already been opened and putting all those Evils back in the box will be an extreme task at best.

Self censorship is best but other advice works also. Do we really need porn sites on the Net?

Rumor has it that one person tried to straighten out the world and you know what they did to him.

No doubt we need to round up at least one stinkin' liberal news reporter a week?, month?, year? and line him up before a firing squad. Probably would improve the news huh?

Has the Net run it's course? Maybe, however it is one of the signs of the advance of the Age of Aquarius and has it's bad as well as good side. Nothing new. It's all happened before. Write a hit, write a blog!

[This message has been edited by Ray E. Strode (edited 05-23-2006).]

Ray,

I am not sure what the liberal comment has to do with this? Having never voted for a Democrat and only once voting for a Republican for President, I think I am about as Independent as they come. I don't see this as a liberal issue and in the case of Common Cause, which I believe typically leans left, they are the ones who gave me the info we needed to share. I find nothing liberal in the concepts and warnings which all seem valid to me. I see to benefit to the opposing argument for anyone but Big Business, and not even ALL Big Business but rather ONLY the big business that the IP's choose to work with. Who the hell needs that?

We can continue to let multinational corporations get a tighter and tighter stranglehold on media and communications services and then hope they don't have an agenda or we can at least fight to keep the Internet open for both the Left, Right and Middle to get their opinions out without them being filtered by 3rd party corporate interests.

It's also exactly how the Major label system could artifically regain control of the music industry which is slipping through their bloated fingers. If they can make sure only the music they handle will be found on the web using the IP's they control or pay off, then we have the same artificial contraints and lack of "shelf" space in record stores they've used to control things to date. At best, it's simply handing power over to a new gatekeeper. For what exactly?

Brian

Here's important info on what you can do courtest of Jenny Toomey:

Here is an easy way for them to sign a petition

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

There is also a link in the upper right hand corner where members can contact their congressmen/women. It would be great if folks did that too.

This is a link funny utube/ ask a ninja explanation of what’s going on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibSt...20internet%20policy%20telecom%20politics

Heck, Brian, it's not a liberal issue at all. I, as an old-school conservative, see the value in a level playing field for the dissemination of information.

I called my Congressman's local office today (he's a member of the judiciary committee) and added my name to the tally.

------------------
Later,

Pat

Good news, Net Neutrality has passed in the House of Representatives. Lets hope the rest of the government makes the correct and sane decision.

Here's the story on CNet... http://news.com.com/House+panel+votes+for+Net+neutrality/2100-1028_3-6077007.html?tag=nefd.lede

Jody

------------------
Music That Makes Your Soul Happy!
www.jodywhitesides.com

Subject: [cc-mediareform] House Judiciary Committee vote protects open Internet

Vote was 20 to 13. Many members electing to avoid the vote altogether. But a resounding victory during a week when we were told over and over that votes were very uncertain. Our Statement Follows

Celia Viggo Wexler
Vice President for Advocacy
202-736-5745

From: Mary Boyle On Behalf Of Common Cause Press Office

House Judiciary Committee vote protects open Internet

Common Cause
Press Release

For Immediate Release May 25, 2006 Contact: Mary Boyle (202) 736-5770

Statement from Common Cause President Chellie Pingree on House Judiciary Committee’s approval of the Internet Freedom and Non-Discrimination Act (HR 5417)

Today, House Judiciary members from both sides of the aisle withstood an onslaught of industry lobbying and voted to protect our rights to an open Internet that fosters democratic discourse and citizen engagement. Many struggles remain, but we have won a key battle.