Congress Tries to Gag the 'Net

[cenacle]

[This topic seems important enough to post--Raymond]

Dear MoveOn member,

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities, plus MoveOn's online organizing ability, will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet.

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

If Net Neutrality is gutted, MoveOn either pays protection money to dominant Internet providers or risks that online activism tools don't work for members. Amazon and Google either pay protection money or risk that their websites process slowly on your computer. That why these high-tech pioneers are joining the fight to protect Network Neutrality1â€"and you can do your part today.

The free and open Internet is under seigeâ€"can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_in ... enKXyA&t=4

To save the Internet, there needs to be a public groundswellâ€"so please forward this to 3 friends. Let them know protecting the free and open Internet is fundamentalâ€"it affects everything. When you sign this petition, you'll be kept informed of the next steps we can take to keep the heat on Congress. Votes begin in a House committee next week.

MoveOn has already seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Just last week, AOL blocked any email mentioning a coalition that MoveOn is a part of, which opposes AOL's proposed "email tax."2 And last year, Canada's version of AT&Tâ€"Telusâ€"blocked their Internet customers from visiting a website sympathetic to workers with whom Telus was negotiating.3

Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, "The internet can't be free."4

We need to let Congress know we are paying attention. Together, we must make sure they listen to our voices and the voices of people like Vint Cerf, a father of the Internet and Google's "Chief Internet Evangelist," who recently wrote this to Congress in support of preserving Network Neutrality:

My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity...Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.4

The essence of the Internet is at riskâ€"can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here:

http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_in ... enKXyA&t=5

Please forward to 3 others who care about this issue. Thanks for all you do.

â€"Eli Pariser, Adam Green, Noah T. Winer, and the MoveOn.org Civic Action team  
  Friday, April 21st, 2006

P.S.  MoveOn is part of a broad SaveTheInternet.com Coalition, with groups like Gun Owners of America, Free Press, consumer groups, and progressive and conservative bloggers alikeâ€"check it out!

P.P.S.  If Congress abandons Network Neutrality, who will be affected?

Advocacy groups like MoveOnâ€"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.
Nonprofitsâ€"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 usersâ€"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"â€"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 listenersâ€"A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
Online purchasersâ€"Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower pricesâ€"distorting your choice as a consumer.
Small businesses and tele-commutersâ€"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 retireesâ€"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.
Bloggersâ€"Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clipsâ€"silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.
To sign the petition to Congress supporting "network neutrality," click here:
http://www.civic.moveon.org/save_the_in ... enKXyA&t=6

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

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

Sources:

1. "Telecommunication Policy Proposed by Congress Must Recognize Internet Neutrality," Letter to Senate leaders, March 23, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1653

2. "AOL Blocks Critics' E-Mails," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1649

3. "B.C. Civil Liberties Association Denounces Blocking of Website by Telus," British Columbia Civil Liberties Association Statement, July 27, 2005
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1650

4. "At SBC, It's All About 'Scale and Scope," BusinessWeek, November 7, 2002
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1648

5. "Net Losses," New Yorker, March 20, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1646

6. "Don't undercut Internet access," San Francisco Chronicle editorial, April 17, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1645


Subscription Management:
This is a message from MoveOn.org Civic Action. To change your email address, update your contact info, or remove yourself (Raymond Soulard, Jr.) from this list, please visit our subscription management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=7362-6787141-_bQN ... a6loenKXyA

[cenacle]

Internet Freedom Gains Big Momentum

Published May 2, 2006 at Buzzflash.com
http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/06/05/ale06048.html

New York Times Endorses Net Neutrality, Internet Freedom Bills Offered in Congress, SavetheInternet.com Coalition Passes 500,000 Petition Signatures

News from the SaveTheInternet.com Coalition:

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

WASHINGTON -- As the SaveTheInternet.com Coalition passed 500,000 signatures supporting Internet freedom, a pair of key bills protecting Network Neutrality were introduced in Congress and the New York Times wrote a powerful endorsement of this crucial issue.

The New York Times wrote:

"Net neutrality" is a concept that is still unfamiliar to most Americans, but it keeps the Internet democratic. ... 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.

This provided a powerful boost to Net Neutrality advocates, who are up against a multimillion dollar lobbying campaign by Internet operators like AT&T, who want more control over what Web sites people see and use online. A House committee has already voted to gut Net Neutrality, but the full House and Senate have yet to weigh in. Votes are expected in upcoming weeks.

Today, Internet freedom advocates in Congress introduced legislation that would protect Net Neutrality under the law. In the House, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) offered the standalone "Network Neutrality Act of 2006," saying on the House floor, "This legislation is designed to save the Internet and thwart those who seek to fundamentally and detrimentally alter the Internet as we know it."

In the Senate, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) are expected to drop a bipartisan bill tomorrow with meaningful protections for Network Neutrality. Both senators sit on the powerful Senate Commerce Committee, which is currently drafting major new telecommunications legislation. Their bill joins one offered by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "The Internet Non-Discrimination Act" (S. 2360), which was introduced earlier this year.

Adding to that momentum, the SavetheInternet.com Coalition announced that in less than a week, its petition signatures to preserve Net Neutrality jumped from 250,000 to 500,000. The number of organizations participating in the coalition jumped from 50 to 400.

"The fight for Internet freedom is gaining big momentum," said Timothy Karr, campaign director of Free Press, a national, nonpartisan media reform and Internet policy group. "Every day, companies like AT&T and Comcast lose ground in their fight to end the free and open Internet that has revolutionized democratic participation and economic innovation."

The SavetheInternet.com coalition includes: Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, Craig Newmark of Craigslist, Glenn Reynolds (aka libertarian blogger Instapundit), Parents Television Council, American Library Association, United Church of Christ, Center for Digital Democracy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Public Knowledge, and other major public interest groups. The coalition is spearheaded by Free Press.

“Without statutory network neutrality, there is nothing to prevent big telecom companies from injecting political bias into the very skeleton of modern communications,” said Craig Fields, director of Internet operations for Gun Owners of America. “Whenever you see people on the left and right joining together about something Congress is getting ready to do, it's been my experience that what Congress is getting ready to do is basically un-American.”

Actions that members of the public are being urged to take include:

Sign a Net Neutrality petition to Congress http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1692
Call Congress: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=1670
Write a letter to Congress: http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet
MySpace: Add "Save the Internet" as a friend: http://www.myspace.com/savetheinternet
Blog on this issue: http://www.savetheinternet.com/=blogger

For more information, visit www.SavetheInternet.com

[cenacle]

House panel votes for Net neutrality
By Declan McCullagh

Published May 25, 2006 at news.com.com
http://news.com.com/House+panel+votes+f ... 77007.html

WASHINGTON--A bill that seeks to prevent broadband providers from offering an exclusive high-speed lane for video and other services has taken a step closer to becoming law.

By a 20-13 vote Thursday that partially followed party lines, the House Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would require broadband providers to abide by strict Net neutrality principles, meaning that their networks must be operated in a "nondiscriminatory" manner.

All 14 Democrats on the committee--joined by 6 Republicans--supported the measure, while 13 Republicans opposed it.

That vote is a surprise victory for Internet companies such as Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo that had lobbied fiercely in the last few months for stricter laws to ensure that Verizon, AT&T and other broadband providers could not create a "fast lane" reserved for video or other high-priority content of their choice.

"The lack of competition in the broadband marketplace presents a clear incentive for providers to leverage dominant market power over the broadband bottleneck, to preselect, favor or prioritize Internet content," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican who heads the committee.

In an unusual twist, many members of the committee said they were voting for the legislation not because of strong concerns over Net neutrality--but instead because of a turf battle. They said they were worried that a competing proposal already approved by a different committee last month would diminish their own influence in the future.

That other bill, called the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement, or COPE, Act, says the Federal Communications Commission "shall have exclusive authority" to investigate violations of Net neutrality principles. It's backed by Rep. Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who heads the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and does not include strict Net neutrality mandates.

Because the FCC is overseen by Barton's committee, that proposal would effectively cut off Judiciary Committee members from being able to hold hearings on Net neutrality antitrust violations, give speeches about corporate malfeasance and solicit campaign cash from affected companies--the lifeblood of modern Washington politics.

That resulted in an unusual situation in which politicians who weren't enthusiastic about the Judiciary bill nevertheless voted for it on Wednesday. "I think the bill is a blunt instrument, and yet I think it does send a message that it's important to attain jurisdiction for the Justice Department and for antitrust issues," said Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat.

The most pointed opposition to the Judiciary bill came from Texas Republican Lamar Smith, who said he would prefer "to leave these decisions to the courts to work out on a case-by-case basis under the antitrust law."

[cenacle]

Senate fight looms over extra Net fees
By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff  |  June 10, 2006
http://www.boston.com/business/technolo ... es?mode=PF

Supporters of a federal ban on premium Internet pricing say their defeat in the US House of Representatives is just the beginning of their fight for ``network neutrality."

``I think that this really does serve as an enormous wake-up call to the tech world, and I think that we'll see a much much stronger showing in the Senate," said US Representative Edward Markey, Democrat of Malden.

The network neutrality issue has become the most disputed aspect of an effort to overhaul the nation's telecommunications law. Legislation by US Representative Joe Barton , Republican of Texas, is mainly designed to make it easier for telephone companies to enter the cable television business. But a coalition of nonprofit political lobbying groups and major providers of Internet content like Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp. also wants to bar Internet providers from charging extra fees to organizations that want to transmit high-quality video and audio data over the Internet.

Large telecom companies like Verizon Communications Inc., Comcast Corp., and AT&T Corp. have said that they will keep offering traditional Internet service and that companies won't have to pay extra to use it. But the telecom firms say they're spending billions to create sophisticated data networks and it's only fair that companies pay extra to use them .

Companies like Microsoft and Google don't want to pay additional fees to transmit data over the Internet. And political groups on the left and right say they can't afford to pay such fees. These groups fear this will hamper their ability to communicate their ideas.

On Thursday, the House considered an amendment offered by Markey that would have empowered the Federal Communications Commission to block premium Internet pricing plans. But the Markey amendment was defeated 269-152. The House then passed the Barton bill, 321-101 .

``In its rush to satisfy the big telephone companies, the House turned its back on . . . hundreds of thousands of consumers," said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a lobbying group.

FreedomWorks, a lobbying organization opposed to network neutrality laws, hailed the House vote. But its vice president for research, Wayne Brough, also predicted that the fight would be tougher in the Senate, ``because there are more issues in play."

Aside from network neutrality, some senators are concerned that streamlined regulation of telecom video services might take too much power from local government s. Senator Ted Stevens, Republican of Alaska, is also pushing to compel providers of voice-over-Internet phone services to pay into the universal service fund that supports rural telecom services . The issues may delay action on the bill until next year, said Brough.