Congress is selling out the internet - GoFuckYourself.com

Tabitha's Toybox · 05-01-2006, 03:02 PM

Just got this from moveon.org, pretty interesting....while I don't know if the petition will work, it doesn't hurt to try

Quote:

Hi,

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an iPod? Everything we do online will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law next week that gives giant corporations more control over what we do and see on the Internet.

Internet providers like AT&T are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality--the Internet's First Amendment and the key to Internet freedom. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. BarnesandNoble.com doesn't have to outbid Amazon for the right to work properly on your computer.

If Net Neutrality is gutted, many sites--including Google, eBay, and iTunes--must either pay protection money to companies like AT&T or risk having their websites process slowly. That why these high-tech pioneers, plus diverse groups ranging from MoveOn to Gun Owners of America, are opposing Congress' effort to gut Internet freedom.

You can do your part today--can you sign this petition telling your member of Congress to preserve Internet freedom? Click here:

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the...GB2MT7oL3iwVaQ

I signed this petition, along with 250,000 others so far. This petiton will be delivered to Congress before the House of Representatives votes next week. When you sign, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress.

Snopes.com, which monitors various causes that circulate on the Internet, explained:

Simply put, network neutrality means that no web site's traffic has precedence over any other's...Whether a user searches for recipes using Google, reads an article on snopes.com, or looks at a friend's MySpace profile, all of that data is treated equally and delivered from the originating web site to the user's web browser with the same priority. In recent months, however, some of the telephone and cable companies that control the telecommunications networks over which Internet data flows have floated the idea of creating the electronic equivalent of a paid carpool lane.

If companies like AT&T have their way, Web sites ranging from Google to eBay to iTunes either pay protection money to get into the "fast lane" or risk opening slowly on your computer. We can't let the Internet--this incredible medium which has been such a revolutionary force for democratic participation, economic innovation, and free speech--become captive to large corporations.

Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Together, we do care about preserving the free and open Internet.

Please sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Internet freedom. Click here:

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the...GB2MT7oL3iwVaQ

Thanks.

woj · 05-01-2006, 03:36 PM

interesting...

polish_aristocrat · 05-01-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by woj

interesting...

indeed, at first i thought it's a joke but then someone said there's some truth to it, especially since its taken from moveon.org

anyway, i cant really comment much on it

mx8829 · 05-01-2006, 03:40 PM

thats fucked up

Dagwolf · 05-01-2006, 03:47 PM

What's the proposed legislation? It doesn't contain the text of the proposed law as far as I can see.

thricer · 05-01-2006, 03:50 PM

interesting article...

munki · 05-01-2006, 03:51 PM

Yet another racket brought to you by our government

Tabitha's Toybox · 05-01-2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dagwolf

What's the proposed legislation? It doesn't contain the text of the proposed law as far as I can see.

I am trying to find it without much luck, but I don't reeally know where to look

here is some more interesting info though

http://www.infotoday.com/newsbreaks/nb060501-1.shtml

Quote:

The U.S. Congress has network neutrality under scrutiny and perhaps under threat. Network neutrality is the concept that broadband carriers will neither interfere with nor inhibit the free flow of information over the Internet. A bill, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Efficiency Act of 2006, or COPE (aka the Barton-Rush Act), is making its way through the House of Representatives. It could empower commercial broadband carriers like Sprint and AT&T to manipulate Internet transactions by prohibiting or slowing access to and transmission of specific sites. In effect, the buzz is that the House proposes to cede control of the Internet to the telecoms and cable companies. By contrast, there are bills being introduced in the Senate that seek to protect network neutrality. First among these is S. 2360, the proposed Internet Non-Discrimination Act of 2006. 1, 2
What?s at stake? COPE could permit Internet carriers, the owners of the ?pipes,? to discriminate among different content providers, to give some preferential placement, or even to restrict some content. Detractors see this as both private sector content regulation (pay for placement) and perhaps even censorship. Proponents argue that it would be a case of the ?unseen hand? at work. Proponents have argued that there is little evidence that private sector carriers discriminate against content providers. Detractors point to cases in Canada and the U.S. where Internet carriers have, in fact, acted to limit Internet free speech.

Proponents of the COPE legislation frame their arguments in a variety of ways. A Phoenix Center Policy Paper opposes network neutrality mandates that might commodify content and thereby limit competition. Such policies, they argue, would inhibit technological advances and increase end-user costs. 3 National Cable & Telecommunications Association members pledge that they will not block any lawful content or, as stated on page 2 of the Phoenix Center Policy Paper, ?deteriorate or degrade the transmission of these third-party applications and services.? 4 In the eyes of the Phoenix Center, network neutrality is anti-competitive.

Hearings continue for a bill that originated in the subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee to begin mark up of the proposed COPE. On April 4, 2006, Congressman Fred Upton, R-Mich., chair of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet and an important architect of the proposed legislation, favors an ad hoc approach to network neutrality:

Finally, I want to briefly mention the net neutrality provision in the Committee Print. While there is virtually no evidence of actual bad behavior in the marketplace, I believe that authorizing the FCC to enforce its Broadband Policy Statement?on a case-by-case adjudicatory basis?is a better framework to ensure that the public Internet remains open and dynamic versus alternatively adopting anticipatory regulation, which would have a dramatically chilling effect on broadband deployment and the development of exciting, new services. It?s a lot like Goldilocks and the Three Bears: some say the provision is ?too small,? others say that it is ?too big??but, I believe it is just right?and will get even more right with some changes which I will be offering tomorrow in a Manager?s Amendment. 5

COPE is one of several means to deregulate broadband and to provide greater latitude to private sector carriers. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), for example, ruled as early as 2002 that broadband carriers could restrict competitor access to their lines; the FCC has also endorsed strong network neutrality provisions in an August 2005 statement by its chairman, Kevin Martin. At the same time, FCC Commissioner Martin has indicated support for a ?tiered? Internet. In a tiered Internet, broadband carriers would be permitted to charge major content providers (perhaps Google, Yahoo!, and maybe even Wikipedia) a fee or even a higher fee to transmit their material.

Opposition to COPE is growing. Opinions are divided along essentially partisan lines. Democrats seek Congressional legislation to prohibit discriminatory activity whereas Republicans favor relying on the FCC?s regulatory regime. Both Democrats and Republicans favor fines for network neutrality violators; they differ on what constitutes a violation and on the size of the fine.

Representative Ed Markey, D-Mass., offered a network neutrality protection amendment on April 25 (for text, see http://www.mydd.com/images/admin/Mar..._Amendment.pdf. In support of the Markey amendment, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., posted the following at her Web site in late April 2006 to solicit grass-roots support:

We, the undersigned, oppose the lack of Network Neutrality protections in the COPE Act, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). We strongly urge passage of the Network Neutrality amendment sponsored by Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), along with Representatives Rick Boucher (D-VA), Anna Eshoo (D-CA), and Jay Inslee (D-WA).

Whereas, the free and open nature of the Internet has fostered unprecedented innovation and economic growth;

Whereas, a fundamental part of the Internet?s nature is the fact that no one owns it and it is open to all comers;

Whereas, the Barton Bill would block the FCC from restoring meaningful protections for Internet consumers and entrepreneurs, and from prohibiting the imposition of bottleneck taxes and other discriminatory actions on the part of broadband network operators, such as AT&T and Verizon;

Whereas, the imposition of additional fees for Internet content providers would unduly burden web-based small businesses, start-ups, as well as communications for non-commercial users, religious speech, civic involvement, and exercising our First Amendment freedoms;

Whereas, the Markey amendment will effectively thwart attempts by broadband behemoths to block, impair, or degrade a consumer?s ability to access any lawful Internet content, application, or service; will protect my right to attach any device for use with a broadband connection,; will ensure that phone and cable companies cannot favor themselves or affiliated parties to the detriment of other broadband competitors, innovators, and independent entrepreneurs; and it will prohibit the broadband Internet providers from charging extra fees and warping the web in a multi-tiered network of bandwidth haves and have-nots.

Therefore, I join as a citizen co-sponsor of the Markey Amendment to save the Internet as we know it. (http://www.democraticleader.house.go...ity_/index.cfm)

The Markey Amendment, however, failed in votes, first in the subcommittee and then on April 26 in the full committee.

An interesting coalition in opposition to the COPE network neutrality provisions has been formed. It includes in its membership such voices as Lawrence Lessig, Timothy Wu, Common Cause, the American Library Association (ALA), and Gun Owners of America (see http://savetheinternet.com/=coalition). Vinton Cerf, father of the Internet and also a member, is outspoken in his opposition. Cerf is already on record in his Feb. 7, 2006, testimony before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology. He explained his and Google?s philosophy on and support for network neutrality (http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf).

Tabitha's Toybox · 05-01-2006, 04:11 PM

more from that same article

Quote:

The ALA position on network neutrality is based on insuring access to information resources for libraries large and small:

The Internet developed as a network of wide-open spaces with little regulation and so libraries can easily access and provide digital information, traditional library materials, web sites, and other digital tools to better serve library users. Thus far, hahaha8216;net neutralityhahaha8217; has prevented ISP-gatekeepers from blocking or discriminating against smaller, less popular or less lucrative providers. ALA asks for this neutrality to be maintained. Diverse sources of Internet content should not be marginalized by allowing ISPs to create a tiered system. 6

The Gun Owners of America argue along the lines of service, competition, and intellectual freedom:

It would be a shame if a handful of major telecoms were free to pick and choose which individuals and associations were the recipients of quality servicehahaha8212;and which were left out in the cold. Without even ascribing a political motive to their actions, greed alone will skew the Internet marketplace if companies can deny superior quality of service to those who choose to use the products of competitors. 7

In testimony before Congress on Feb. 7, 2006, Lessig asserted: hahaha8220;It is my view that Congress should ratify [former FCC chairman Michael] Powellhahaha8217;s hahaha8220;Internet Freedoms,hahaha8221; making them a part of the FCChahaha8217;s basic law.hahaha8221; 8 Chairman Powell enumerated his four freedoms in a talk at the University of Colorado School of Law on Feb. 8, 2004: 9

Freedom to Access Content. First, consumers should have access to their choice of legal content.

Freedom to Use Applications. Second, consumers should be able to run applications of their choice.

Freedom to Attach Personal Devices. Third, consumers should be permitted to attach any devices they choose to the connection in their homes, and

Freedom to Obtain Service Plan Information. Fourth, consumers should receive meaningful information regarding their service plans.

Common Cause constructs its argument along intellectual freedom lines: 10

Tell them to keep their hands off our Internet!

If successful in Congress, these companies would open the door to violate what techies call hahaha8216;net neutrality.hahaha8217; It is the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content they want, post their own content, and use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by their Internet service providers (ISPs).

Net neutrality is the reason this democratic medium has grown exponentially, fueled innovation, and altered how we communicate. We must make certain that for-profit interests do not destroy the democratic culture of the Web.

The continuity of network neutrality, by my lights, is an important resource for information professionals. A hahaha8220;tieredhahaha8221; Internet perhaps threatens access by establishing differential fees for information providers. Network anti-neutrality provisions permit broadband carriers to provide barriers of access by discriminating against information providers for whatever reason, economic, political, or content. Perhaps there have been but limited examples of network neutrality by private sector actors so far. But, we do know that a privilege granted is a privilege abused. And we know that some governments, among them China, have sought to limit access for their citizens. In the final analysis, censorship is censorship. For information professionals, censorship in any form is sacrilege.

As we all know from high school civics, a committee report or even passage in one house of the legislature does not a law make. The proposed COPE legislation and other bills will work their way through the legislative process. For good or ill, the Internet as we know it is at stake. It may seem trite to suggest it, but now is the time to make your views known to your representatives in the House and the Senate.

Tabitha's Toybox · 05-01-2006, 04:13 PM

some more on this

Quote:

If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected?

Advocacy groups like MoveOn--Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to work correctly.

Nonprofits--A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet service.

Google users--Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.

Innovators with the "next big idea"--Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.

Ipod listeners--A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.

Online purchasers--Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices--distorting your choice as a consumer.

Small businesses and tele-commuters--When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.

Parents and retirees--Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.

Bloggers--Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips--silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.

Tabitha's Toybox · 05-01-2006, 04:15 PM

and one more post on this issue....we really need to take a stand on this you all, this is pretty serious and will affect EVERY ONE OF US

This excerpt from the New Yorker really sums up this issue well.

Quote:

In the first decades of the twentieth century, as a national telephone network spread across the United States, A.T. & T. adopted a policy of "tiered access" for businesses. Companies that paid an extra fee got better service: their customers' calls went through immediately, were rarely disconnected, and sounded crystal-clear. Those who didn't pony up had a harder time making calls out, and people calling them sometimes got an "all circuits busy" response. Over time, customers gravitated toward the higher-tier companies and away from the ones that were more difficult to reach. In effect, A.T. & T.'s policy turned it into a corporate kingmaker.

If you've never heard about this bit of business history, there's a good reason: it never happened. Instead, A.T. & T. had to abide by a "common carriage" rule: it provided the same quality of service to all, and could not favor one customer over another. But, while "tiered access" never influenced the spread of the telephone network, it is becoming a major issue in the evolution of the Internet.

Until recently, companies that provided Internet access followed a de-facto commoncarriage rule, usually called "network neutrality," which meant that all Web sites got equal treatment. Network neutrality was considered so fundamental to the success of the Net that Michael Powell, when he was chairman of the F.C.C., described it as one of the basic rules of "Internet freedom." In the past few months, though, companies like A.T. & T. and BellSouth have been trying to scuttle it. In the future, Web sites that pay extra to providers could receive what BellSouth recently called "special treatment," and those that don't could end up in the slow lane. One day, BellSouth customers may find that, say, NBC.com loads a lot faster than YouTube.com, and that the sites BellSouth favors just seem to run more smoothly. Tiered access will turn the providers into Internet gatekeepers.[4]

polish_aristocrat · 05-01-2006, 04:16 PM

are you Jace btw?

i thought you quit gfy

Tabitha's Toybox · 05-01-2006, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by polish_aristocrat

are you Jace btw?

i thought you quit gfy

No, I am Sophia, Tabitha's sister...I have been working with them on their site for a while, but I am just now coming onto the boards...Jace asked me to because he isn't posting on here anymore

05-01-2006, 03:36 PM	#2
woj <&(©¿©)&> Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 47,882	interesting... __________________ Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000 Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager

05-01-2006, 03:40 PM	#4
mx8829 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 891	thats fucked up __________________ contact jambojack at gmail

05-01-2006, 03:47 PM	#5
Dagwolf President of Canada Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Leaving Hell, Entering Limbo Posts: 23,141	What's the proposed legislation? It doesn't contain the text of the proposed law as far as I can see. __________________ Sleep well, and dream of large women.

05-01-2006, 03:50 PM	#6
thricer Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 5,324	interesting article... __________________ None So

05-01-2006, 03:51 PM	#7
munki Do Fun Shit. Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OC Posts: 13,393	Yet another racket brought to you by our government __________________ “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.” -Oscar Wilde

05-01-2006, 04:16 PM	#12
polish_aristocrat Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 40,377	are you Jace btw? i thought you quit gfy __________________ I don't use ICQ anymore.