Alecto Perdita (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
alectoperdita) wrote2006-05-02 11:20 pm
alectoperdita) wrote2006-05-02 11:20 pm
Entry tags:
I am damn surprised I have not seen more of this mentioned...
Brought to attention by the ever link-spamtastic ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cleolinda and ridiculously expanded upon by yours truly.
This is damn important. Although only applicable to Americans, no offense to the rest of the world, but this is just yet another problem we're facing... If anything, if the broadband companies get what they want in this case, both you and I will pay loads and loads more for crappy service. As someone else put it, money alone can be enough of a rallying call for anyone.
The Network Neutrality Act has been introduced by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) and it would be in our best interest for it to pass.
What is network neutrality? The short story is that network neutrality provides a fair and leveled playing field for all users of the internet. The only people that can benefit from this are the broadband companies- the ones receiving the new revenue and profiting off increased service charges. It's so that one company cannot pay money to a broadband company to receive priority bandwidth over another company. If anything, it reeks of the potential for abuse. I wouldn't be so naive to think neither the companies nor the government would dare to take advantage. The US currently has no legislature regarding network neutrality in place.
Why this lack of network neutrality legislation may soon bite the consumer in the ass...
From the New York Times:
Keeping a Democratic Web
Published: May 2, 2006
"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally. Net neutrality recently suffered a setback in the House, but there is growing hope that the Senate will take up the cause.
One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But 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 little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.
That would be a financial windfall for Internet service providers, but a disaster for users, who could find their Web browsing influenced by whichever sites paid their service provider the most money. There is a growing movement of Internet users who are pushing for legislation to make this kind of discrimination impossible. It has attracted supporters ranging from MoveOn.org to the Gun Owners of America. Grass-roots political groups like these are rightly concerned that their online speech could be curtailed if Internet service providers were allowed to pick and choose among Web sites.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee defeated a good Net-neutrality amendment last week. But the amendment got more votes than many people expected, suggesting that support for Net neutrality is beginning to take hold in Congress. In the Senate, Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, are drafting a strong Net-neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it.
Columbia Law School Professor says network neutrality good, but what would a member of the liberal Ivy elite know...
So what are the prospects of this act? In the recent past, the US House of Energy and Commerce Committee has rejected net neutrality amendments in a vote of 34-22, perhaps mainly because it was attached to a larger telecommunication bill. And a quick look through Google's (that does support net neutrality) and Yahoo's news aggregation reveals surprisingly little coverage in internet sources.
However, it has been noticed that as more voters become aware of this issue and voice their opinions to their Representative, the more they may be willing to change their stance. So here are the ways in which you can do something if you so choose to (taken from a bunch of blogs talking about this):
Thus ends my spamming and internet activism.
ETA Maybe everyone should cool down and really analyze the implementation of legislation?
More about the general COPE bill in the House and Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) "Communications, Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006" in the Senate
From ConsumerAffairs.com: Congress Wrestles with Net Neutrality
cleolinda and ridiculously expanded upon by yours truly.This is damn important. Although only applicable to Americans, no offense to the rest of the world, but this is just yet another problem we're facing... If anything, if the broadband companies get what they want in this case, both you and I will pay loads and loads more for crappy service. As someone else put it, money alone can be enough of a rallying call for anyone.
The Network Neutrality Act has been introduced by Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) and it would be in our best interest for it to pass.
What is network neutrality? The short story is that network neutrality provides a fair and leveled playing field for all users of the internet. The only people that can benefit from this are the broadband companies- the ones receiving the new revenue and profiting off increased service charges. It's so that one company cannot pay money to a broadband company to receive priority bandwidth over another company. If anything, it reeks of the potential for abuse. I wouldn't be so naive to think neither the companies nor the government would dare to take advantage. The US currently has no legislature regarding network neutrality in place.
Why this lack of network neutrality legislation may soon bite the consumer in the ass...
From the New York Times:
Keeping a Democratic Web
Published: May 2, 2006
"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. Cable and telephone companies that provide Internet service are talking about creating a two-tiered Internet, in which Web sites that pay them large fees would get priority over everything else. Opponents of these plans are supporting Net-neutrality legislation, which would require all Web sites to be treated equally. Net neutrality recently suffered a setback in the House, but there is growing hope that the Senate will take up the cause.
One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But 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 little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.
That would be a financial windfall for Internet service providers, but a disaster for users, who could find their Web browsing influenced by whichever sites paid their service provider the most money. There is a growing movement of Internet users who are pushing for legislation to make this kind of discrimination impossible. It has attracted supporters ranging from MoveOn.org to the Gun Owners of America. Grass-roots political groups like these are rightly concerned that their online speech could be curtailed if Internet service providers were allowed to pick and choose among Web sites.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee defeated a good Net-neutrality amendment last week. But the amendment got more votes than many people expected, suggesting that support for Net neutrality is beginning to take hold in Congress. In the Senate, Olympia Snowe, a Maine Republican, and Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, are drafting a strong Net-neutrality bill that would prohibit broadband providers from creating a two-tiered Internet. Senators who care about the Internet and Internet users should get behind it.
Columbia Law School Professor says network neutrality good, but what would a member of the liberal Ivy elite know...
So what are the prospects of this act? In the recent past, the US House of Energy and Commerce Committee has rejected net neutrality amendments in a vote of 34-22, perhaps mainly because it was attached to a larger telecommunication bill. And a quick look through Google's (that does support net neutrality) and Yahoo's news aggregation reveals surprisingly little coverage in internet sources.
However, it has been noticed that as more voters become aware of this issue and voice their opinions to their Representative, the more they may be willing to change their stance. So here are the ways in which you can do something if you so choose to (taken from a bunch of blogs talking about this):
1. SIGN a Net Neutrality petition to Congress.
2. CALL Congress now. Especially, tell your representatives in the House to support Markey's Net Neutrality Act of 2006, but educate your senators on this issue too, as the fight will soon move there. (If your Representative voted the way you wanted, thank him or her and encourage him or her to continue to support your cause.)
3. WRITE A LETTER to Congress. (The House will not be voting this week on this issue in light of increased public scrutiny, so your letters should get there in time if you do so right away.)
4. MYSPACE: Add "Save the Internet" as a friend.
5. Check out the BLOG RESOURCES about this issue, including "Save the Internet" logo.
6. VISIT the SavetheInternet coalition Web site for more information.
Thus ends my spamming and internet activism.
ETA Maybe everyone should cool down and really analyze the implementation of legislation?
More about the general COPE bill in the House and Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) "Communications, Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006" in the Senate
From ConsumerAffairs.com: Congress Wrestles with Net Neutrality
no subject
no subject
no subject
Also, Slate ran a good article on why neutrality is good. (http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/)
no subject
no subject
Are you referring to agonized Jon? Poor, poor man. *pets*
no subject
Yeah. Poor Jon, I feel bad for him sometimes. I wonder what he's going to do without Bush as President in (hopefully) two years?
no subject
Hmm, when you think about some of Bush's possible successors... Life doesn't get that much brighter...
no subject
Can you see President Bill Frist? Brr.
no subject
no subject
no subject
This is certainly a grave concern for conteporary America and I think that there will be a day of reckoning to come on this issue. I can only hope that the activism I so disparage in my latest LJ may have an effect here. *crosses fingers*
no subject
*crosses fingers with you*
no subject