This Issue Is VITAL and it Need's DU'S Full ATTENTION NOW!!!

[althecat]

This is far from the first post on this entry and I invite others to cross reference theres... the unfortunate truth is that for some reason

PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS IS.... LETS CHANGE THAT...

First read this blog entry

Congress Is Giving Away the Internet, and You Won't Like Who Gets It
http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29086
Congress is going to hand the operation of the Internet over to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast. Democrats are helping. It's a shame.

Don’t look now, but the House Commerce Committee next Wednesday is likely to vote to turn control of the Internet over to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner and what’s left of the telecommunications industry. It will be one of those stories the MSM writes about as “little noticed” because they haven’t covered it.

... SNIP...

Here’s the inside baseball: A couple of weeks ago, a courageous band of legislators tried to stop the madness in Subcommittee. Ed Markey, Rick Boucher, Anna Eshoo and Jay Inslee proposed some good language to protect the Internet. For their troubles, they just got four more votes, other than theirs. Just three Democrats, other than the sponsors, voted for it. Only one Republican voted for it. When we talk about special interest giveaways, this one will be at the top of the list. And we won’t have only Republicans to blame.

Then think a bit.

What political gains have been made in the media in recent years have been MADE EXCLUSIVELY VIA THE INTERNET... NO OTHER MEDIA HAS HELPED... IN FACT ALL OTHER MEDIA FORMS - THANKS TO CORPORATE OWNERSHIP AND ANTI-COMPETITIVE CONDUCT - NEWSPAPERS/RADIO & TV HAVE ACTIVELY WORKED TO UNDERMINE THE GAINS WE HAVE MADE.

DU exists and thrives because the Internet is a level playing field. If phone companies are able to slow down some websites it is only a nano-second before they will effectively have the ability to censor. Whose interests will they defend? DU's, http://takebackthemedia.com , http://truthout.org , http://scoop.co.nz ?

I think not.

Then do something.

If you care about...
- the Iraq War
- corporate fascism
- campaign funding corruption
- the environment
- electronic voting
- democracy

In fact if you care about anything at all then you should contact your congress person immediately and KICK UP A FUSS!!!

WHO THE HELL DO THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE WORKING FOR!!!!

Then K&R This Thread....

P.S. FWIW this is not hyperbole... this is a plan to give corporate fascists the ability to starve the body politic of its oxygen/blood - and it is happening this week. Congress needs to be

FLOODED WITH OUTRAGE...

[althecat]

1. Here's another thread from Greatest on this subject...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x205875
&
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1003638

kick it too... :)

[Joe Fields]

33. I just want everyone here to know that I have done my part,

by forwarding a link to everyone I know to send their congressmen a letter asking them to put a stop to this madness.

[Faux pas]

94. Me too, more than once. n/t

[Heywood J]

59. I think this

really needs to be labelled as the protection racket that it is. How much difference is there between this proposal and gangsters in the twenties making local businesses pay a cut or be shut down?

[Mythsaje]

2. According to its West Coast VP

Comcast is opposing this legislation.

I've already been passing this information around.

[althecat]

6. He is lying....

... most probably...

(edited to remove disparaging language which is quite possibly uncalled for... and which may detract from the message..)

[Mythsaje]

7. You don't know that...

He said it directly to my wife, who is a pretty damn good judge of character. She believes him and I'll take her word for it.

[althecat]

8. Perhaps he thinks he isn't lying.... but unless he is the chairman

.. then he is lying to himself.

Alternatively you could suggest to your wife that he is being lied to.

Either way this development has been every telcos wet dream for several years and unless you can show me an advert in a newspaper in which COMCAST specifically repudiates and opposes this bill then I will take some convincing.

What amazes me is that they are now pushing it through so swiftly. I think they really fear what the net might do if it has time to get organised.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

47. "...they really fear...

...what the net might do if it has time to get organised."

That's all this is about. The Republifascists feel threatened and the threat must be eliminated.

When they felt threatened by paper ballot voting and the difficulty it represents for those who would steal elections, they did the same thing they will do here---simply eliminate the threat.

[althecat]

11. Perhaps he is not lying.... maybe Comcast just hasn't bothered to tell...

anybody their view...

http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2004-29,GGLD:en&q=comcast%20Communications%20Opportunity%2C%20Promotion%2C%20and%20Enhancement%20Act%20of%202006&sa=N&tab=wn

[Joe Fields]

34. OMG! He said it to your wife, who is a pretty good judge of character.

Look, I will not disparage you, or your wife, but come on! His company has everything to gain by this action. Why would Comcast oppose this legislation? Don't tell me. Let me guess: I know, because it will kill the internet, blah,blah, blah.....

[Mythsaje]

68. Or perhaps

because the backlash could be devastating.

Comcast IS a big corporation, but it's extremely diverse. My wife is openly a witch and one of their top salespeople in the US. Comcast treats its employees very well and interferes with them as little as possible. It's hardly the model of corporate tyranny.

This whole thing has only gone this far because it's slipped under the radar. Maybe "oppose" is too strong a word, but, as far as I know, he told her that they don't support it. She asked the question point blank and he didn't even blink. WE may not see a downside for the telecom corps, but I'm willing to bet there's a few of them. Public backlash is only one of them. There's also the possibility that a Democratic congress and president could not only reverse it, but slap a host of punitive restrictions on them in retaliation for the move.

[althecat]

74. Now there is a great idea....

"There's also the possibility that a Democratic congress and president could not only reverse it, but slap a host of punitive restrictions on them in retaliation for the move."

However what is the likelihood that this could ever happen?

The tragedy of the commmons is partly about how once it is alienated it remains alienated.... unless you live in Venezeula.... everybody involved in the piratisation business knows this.... it is almost without exception all one way traffic....

[Mythsaje]

92. As it was in the late 19th Century until the Great Depression...

It can be reversed with the right motivation and will. It's just a matter of the public insisting on it.

One of three things will happen regarding this legislation...either it will fail, which doesn't sound likely at this point, or it will pass and nothing much will change, or it will pass and people will GET PISSED. Take away the freedom to buy, blog, research, download porn, and sell on-line and the average person is going to come unglued.

Your average non-political person isn't paying attention...fuck up his or her routine, and the shit's going to hit the fan.

[althecat]

97. It is far more subtle than that.... the effects will be..

creeping and insidious.... they will take time to appear and by then it will be too late and too hard to reverse....

You say...

"either it will fail, which doesn't sound likely at this point, "

Why? If any interest group on the planet is capable of getting organised it is internet users? More to the point... Democrats may be a bit dim but surely Howard Dean cannot possibly endorse this!!!!

[Mythsaje]

99. I don't buy the too hard to reverse part...

One piece of legislation could wipe it all away if the right people are behind it. We can work against it now, but the Repugs have no reason to give a rat's ass what any of us say NOW. Piss enough of us off, and things could get bad fast.

You overestimate the patience of the average consumer. Start blocking their websites, and they're not going to take it lying down.

[althecat]

103. If Telco's invest money in their networks on the basis of the new law

... they will claim that they did so on the basis of an understanding of what they were able to do with their networks. They will claim bad faith.... this is always the reason that the commons once taken is nigh impossible to get back into the box.

[Mythsaje]

106. Take away their corporate personhood

and they're standing on one leg in an earthquake. Doesn't matter WHAT they claim.

[Breeze54]

95. Ah...stop doing that... it's BS!! .... Please READ! ....and SIGN NOW!

Think the Internet Will Always be Open?
Take Action On This Issue

You think the Internet will always be the great freewheeling information superhighway
you've grown to love? Well, think again. Media giants want to privatize our Internet.

Take a look below (or here) at what some telecom execs and business leaders had to say,
and then send a message telling them how you feel about the Internet.



Now it's your turn to speak up!
Scroll down to compose your message -- it's best if you use your own words.
Please be sure to fill in all your contact information as well.
http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1372975&action=5382&template=x.ascx

Message Recipients:

Cohen, David - Comcast <<<<<-------\/\/\/\

Smith, William - BellSouth

Cuban, Mark - HDnet

Whitacre, Edward - AT&T

Seidenberg, Ivan - Verizon

[Mythsaje]

100. I've said my piece...

From:

Network neutrality is the most vital part of what made the internet what it is today. There are millions of websites connecting with millions of users worldwide, reveling in the unfettered exchange of information, goods, and services.

It is my understanding that many of you seek to change the way the 'net works, not for the benefit of the millions using the net, but for a very few who seek profits at the expense of freedom.

I don't recommend it. If this succeeds, it will result in thousands, if not millions, of people effectively being kicked off the net because of cost issues. And they're going to be mighty unhappy about it.

You all are just getting to the point that the majority of Americans are getting the chance to experience the internet and all its wonders. It's a gift that YOU are giving to them, and some of us appreciate that gift more than you know.

I don't think you all are losing anything by leaving it the way it is...untamed and free-wheeling. But I don't think you're considering the potential loss to all of us if you value profit over accessibility.

I urge you to seriously consider the ramifications of this...not only to the internet, but to the reputation of your companies. The word is going out everywhere what's in the works... and the anger is already rising. I've already stepped up to defend one of you. I'd hate to be proven wrong.

Don't do it.

Leave the internet alone.

Sincerely,

Michael "Saje" Williams

.

[Breeze54]

101. Well said! n/t

[althecat]

104. Excellent stuff Mr Williams....

Sorry for being a little rude in my initial response.... :)

[wordpix]

105. done. My message: Keep your hands off my freedom of speech!

[entanglement]

3. This is an outrage

:grr:

These villains have had Net neutrality in their sights for a while, and this was just a matter of time.

K & R

[althecat]

5. What is COMPLETELY OUTRAGEOUS is that the Democrats are rolling....

... over and letting this happen.

RIGHT NOW.... Online political activism is the only thing keeping progressive politics alive and the DNC's Congresskittens are more interested in making friends with telecomms execs and their campaign funding chequebooks!!!!

THIS IS MORE THAN OUTRAGEOUS IT IS ...

I am speechless!!!

Incandescent in my outrage and unable to describe how bad it is.

[althecat]

4. Moveon.org seem to have figured this one out...

http://Moveon.org 's front page

[rman]

18. Moveon should open its petition to international audience

because the internet is global and privitization of internet in the US will have global consequences.

[helderheid]

58. you said it

[file83]

64. EVERYONE - Goto that MoveOn.org link and SIGN THE PETITION!!!!

:kick: http://www.moveon.org

[electropop]

69. My message for Moveon's petition:

The Internet is the final frontier of free speech, the last place where the values of our Constitution survive. If you allow the same corporations which have gutted and censored the news media to do it to the Internet, the American democratic experiment will be over. Please look into your conscience, think about what kind of world you want your children and grandchildren to live in, and vote to defend the American people from this final, shameful, indignity.

[Control-Z]

75. KEEP THIS AD DISPLAYED!!!

This MoveOn.org ad or a facsimile needs to stay prominently displayed on all the DU main pages for a while. People check in at different times and hang out in different areas of the DU. This news could easily be missed or get dismissed again especially with all the "monkey" business in the news. A link to their petition (or one of our own) would make taking action easier for those of us who are too busy or not inclined to write letters.

This is serious business. I don't know about you guys but I get giddy when I think about the internet; the opportunities I have because of it and, the FREEDOM. I don't want to lose it. I'm not sure who to appeal to about doing this and I'm too new to post so, please guys, take it from here.

[althecat]

9. House Committee Meeting Notice...

There is lots of great stuff in that TPM thread... TPM readers are an informed bunch of people.

The full committee will be hearing this bill this coming week. From the Committee on Energy and Commerce website:
(http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Markups/ 04252006markup1848.htm)

The Full Committee will meet in OPEN MARKUP SESSION on Tuesday, April 25, and Wednesday, April 26, 2006, in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, to consider H.R. ____, a Committee Print on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, as reported by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. On Tuesday, April 25, 2006, the Committee will convene at 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of opening statements. The Committee will reconvene on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 10:00 a.m

[althecat]

10. Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006

.. that is no BS... that's what it is called...

[serryjw]

87. THEY blocked the link!

NOW it begins :cry:

[Peter Frank]

12. Everyone Please Read, Kick, & Recommend This Thread...

There's too much at steak here.

[althecat]

14. Make mine a fillet mignon :)

.... don't just K&R it... ring you Congress Person's office.... Can someone post a phone no. list.... who is on this committee anyway?

[Peter Frank]

23. I'll make sure that you have a "stake" in the outcome...

;)

[sweetheart]

13. Are there any grounded criticisms?

I hear a lot of paranoia here, without any substantial grounding.
I once worked in research engineering for one of these telco's
years ago, and i just don't see how this is a path to doom.

New internet services use 100-100000 times the bandwith that
text services use. High-resolution video is a bandwith hog, and
legitimately needs pay for its own transport footprint. The
ubiquity of packs puts your kilobyte byte DU post in competition with
a gigabyte streaming video.

In the old phone network, it was common practice to tack on extra
circuits to high-usage areas. When the telco was a monopoly, this
was done based on load. Now it is done by profit, and networks
need to justify putting in a new circuit, expecially if commercial
services are the primary users.

Icann is still in charge. Perhaps the congressional dems are
not selling you out like you claim, and maybe this will turn
in to a big nothing.

[althecat]

17. Perhaps we should just suck it and see then...

Afterall... telcos have always operated altruistically and in the public interest in the past. Hell, I think my one uses a cute little dog and fast talking children in its adverts.... how could a company with branding like that do anything underhanded.

[sweetheart]

21. Respectfully, if that were the case,

We would not be able to communicate on this board. Depending on how
old you are, you've seen amazing evolutions in communications by the
model by allowing evolution.

To presume we've reached end-evolution on internet thinking is absurd.
There is a long way to go in network technology, and this innovation
will not be seen if the communists get too much involved.

Every nation on earth is developing a next generation internet strategy,
and the US will be confronted over coming decades with entire virtual
internets switched over dumb fibre and dumb cell air. It has gotten
this far by private technology investment, and all the people who got
it this far, are by and large, still there wanting to take it further.

Corporate governance is very weak in the USA, and it is disconcerting to
have public concernes shuffled away in to opaque unanswerable boardrooms,
but if you get a new improvement and price reducation in internet servcies
for the rest of your life, would there be a difference?

[althecat]

25. Please read my other post too....

From what I can understand of this post of yours you are saying that we should trust the Telcos because we have got this far and the internet is still pretty cool....

In terms of communicating on this board.... that is not the point. Are you suggesting that truly independent political activism should be confined to a "free text space" (ghetto) while new technologies developed to truly use broadband should only be available to CNN, MSNBC and the NY Times?

Telecommunications companies already charge their customers to view my content. Why should we let them charge me to deliver the content too?

To do so would create fast and slow lanes....

Fast lane = CNN, MSNBC, FOX NEWS
Slow lane = blog sites that post video clips that CNN, MSNBC and FOX NEWS want you not to see...

Again... how does this help freedom of speech? Democracy? The Internet?

And most importantly

why are your elected representatives helping the telcos do this?

Perhaps I missed something but I have not noticed a capacity crunch in the broadband world that is causing bottlenecks and which justifies this sort of change?

[sweetheart]

29. the scarcity paradigm

You're speaking as if we're suffering an ongoing long-term bandwidth shortage,
and *are we*?

The telco's have indeed managed to keep the existing operations improving in
bandwidth year on year on year, so quite possibly, the entire concern will
turn out to be nil.

So you're saying that this will create a public and a private internet, and
like with all public infrastructure in the US, it will be robbed blind that
it be slow and antique next to the slick paid-cable internet providers who've
sold the rights to search engine places in back room deals with christian fundies.

If that is indeed true, then i accept your point.

But scarcity of bandwidth, worldwide, could be a white elephant, and the
more serious regulatory issues to deal with internet boundaries. There the
US can cut off the rest of the world from "its" internet, and provide a 2nd
tier of service to expat US citizens like already the case... except that the
US websites will start to spoof different web pages to foreign IP's than
domestic ones, and publishing is done one-off that nobody in the world see
the same internet.

Competition in the future world mass market for internet services is going to
bundle and commoditize a lot of fluffy still-early-generation, technobull.
An enlightened vision of that commoditization needs be postulated.

[althecat]

30. Reading between the lines I am going to take this bit... as a concession

This bit.

So you're saying that this will create a public and a private internet, and
like with all public infrastructure in the US, it will be robbed blind that
it be slow and antique next to the slick paid-cable internet providers who've
sold the rights to search engine places in back room deals with christian fundies.

If that is indeed true, then i accept your point.

As a concession. And for that I thank you...

As for the rest... yes the internet is complicated and there are wonderful and unforseen things ahead for us all. The point that I and moveon.org are making - I think - is that handing control over that future to self-interested US tel-cos - and ignoring Microsoft Google and ICANN in the process - is not going to help this process.

[sweetheart]

49. Yes, "uncle!"

:-)

I can envision a much more mature internet where certain
reference data services are "public" certificates for
constructing a digital legal future. But this would be
embracing it as central to the public common, and the
clear corporate concept is to corrupt any common for their
own benefit, and in this, seeking to rearrange the ground.

It sounds like a nasty power grab, I wonder what excuse those
dems who are voting for it .. what they believe they are doing,
and how they explain it to their constituents.

peace,

[melissinha]

62. tell me more about how it would affect worldwide internet use

As a person who occasionally streams from Brazil and who knows that the internet has become very popular thoughoput the world..... how exactly will this legislation give telcos the "jurisdiction" over bandwidth used worldwide? Would this really demonstrate the true nature of the US government with respect to foreign commodities that we have had a hold on for so many decades?

Secondly, how much are the telcos themselves paying for stateside infrastructure in the form of taxes?

[sweetheart]

77. Gateway Controllers

New communications paradigms run a supercomputer switch,
sometimes called a "gateway controller". Frankly, as the internet
user, the more intelligent your gateway controller, the better.

In application designer-mind, it is best to postulate INFINITE bandwidth,
and zero latency switching. The problem in the personal computer,
partly is its interrupt structure... that the receipt and processing
of packets from the internet is not handled on outboard controllers
to work like memory mapped IO. So instead, it pounds the CPU, and we,
today, suffer an architecture contstrained bandwidth problem, the
memory-to-memory intercomputer latency is screwed by the mocrosoft,
and other oligopoly... "good enough" .. whatever.. i can build any
software application archtiecture on a ubiquituous IP packetlayer
geez, just pack and unpack, re-resolve. As long as persistance is
not a problem, its just basic n-tier real-time multitasked, mutlithreaded,
high-resolutiion rendered 360/data-suit information exposure. When we
extend the technology paradigm in to the user interface *potential*,
the microsoftmonopoly has cost us painfully for a 2 dimensional expectation
of an n-dimensional medium...

...sorry if that sounds like technobabble... I'm basically saying that
the cost of monopoly has already been felt across the technology profession,
and any WISE country would self-develop its own operating system and
communcations switch and communal data network... totally independent
of any american model. The cat's out of the bag, and it does not matter
what the US does, the brazil suppliers are the issue.

But for the future, gateways are the problem at the national borders, all traffic,
comes to a set of gateway comptuers that capture every single packet in to
giant log-disk drives... the archives of every single internet packet ever
sent, and these can be resolved by any CIA/FBI/NSA agent, that if they wanted,
they could watch the virtual image of all your stateside communcations as
real-time as you see it.

GIven taht they could "watch" it, they can as well charge for it, or block it.
This is an issue of your global long-line communications provider. But each
stateside computer can resolve all foreign IP's ans spoof a false image if
programmed to... or the false image can be spoofed from the national-gateway.

I could design an internet jammer that would send modified packets from the
internetional gateways, that would basically destroy all un-encrypted readership.
The probable likelihood is that they'll encrypt the medium and provide a hardware
decrypter.

I'm saying, that the telco is low down in the value stack, and that all applcations
designers see transport as ubiquitous. THe only danger is rote nationalism, not
technology. If an evil agent were to operate a website like DU as a honey-trap,
it could attract every IP of every concern, and as well, spoof custom images to
each and every user based on demographic expectations, that GD would never be
the same between any 2 users. Fortunately that is not a problem.

THe only corruption is to block.. "server unavailable". They can do this from the
military gateways at the sovereign borders... and in a military crisis, i'm pretty
sure they're ready to drop the gate and shut out all potent foreign IP.s.

But this could never happen in civilian times, but the problem of sharing national
switching databases arises as applications seek to integrate distance out of
commuications space.

/ Apologies for long, and technobibble, i'm sure i could condense and
clarify the work to further and better respond to what you ask.


Second question. Its funny money. Monopoly money. The cost of a phone call on a
ubiquitous fibre network is a matter of a spreadsheet fudge, and hence why the
competition is driving bandwidth costs towards the bottommost margins.

[midnight]

81. Broadband is technology that uses air waves?

I am not savvy about this technology that we are using, but I believe that the air space was sold via congress in the 90's during Clinton's Presidency. I believe there was a bit of outrage because it could of been a source of revenue for the citizenry of this country. Instead it was given away. Now the citizenry of this country sounds like they are going to loose again. I just don't understand if they intend to charge us for incoming and out coming e-mails. Or block our points of view?

[Joe Fields]

36. What makes you say that corporate governance is weak here, in the U.S.?

[sweetheart]

43. The directors don't have to "do" anything

And the boards are stuffed with crony's of the CEO. The laws for
appointment to the board, and the transparency of the organization
to the shareholders is byzantine and opaque. Sarbanes Oxley is all
appearance and no substance. It is a make-work bill for the big
consultancies who gifted themselves another legal way to obsficate
operational transparency.

Corporations can't be charged with crimes like the legal individuals
they claim to be. When was the last time you saw a bank lose its license
to trade in a state for overcharging a customer. But if you personally
cheat a customer in a market, you can be banned from trading in a state.
Corporattions are not governed in the united states, it is very weak.

The way to set up proper corporate governance, is to have a proactive public
regulator that is on open speaking terms with the company directors. The
people talk and through staying in touch, herd to long term benefit. Within
a company, the way is to have a separate risk management committee within
the board that answers directly to the shareholders. This chain of command
is duplicated at all levels in corporate management to the staff officer
level. This risk-command then observes and records all behaviourable
abberations in the organizational whole, and brings it straight back to
the shareholders unmodified by layers of corruption.

There is room for a huge huge overhaul of corporate governance. Frankly,
i advocate clean slate starting over... that after a certain date, a new
type of corporate entity come in to existance at a federal level, and that
same date is teh death-date for all corporate entities of all states.

I guess what my point is, is that the laws in big business are so so so
flexible, that the intent of the actor IS the question. Does an actor
act to create value. Do they act to asset strip. Do they act out of
vision for all humanity, just ameircans, or just company employees.
The ambiguity of the collapsed vision has become the reality to
adam smith's mythology.

[althecat]

22. Ok seriously now.....

Lets make this simple so the technically literate can understand.

This bill will establish a system that allows Telcos to charge TAKEBACKTHEMEDIA.COM to deliver its latest blistering attack on the craven conduct of telecommunications companies. At present they cannot do that.

TAKEBACKTHEMEDIA.COM is - as far as I know - a non-profit community minded group of activists providing criticism of media cravenness. They cannot afford to pay Comcast, Verizon and whomever else lots of $$$ to enable people to view their content - MSNBC which is a subsidiary of an arms manufacturer can...

Will this help or hinder free speech?

The Internet has developed till now on the basis that customers pay their telco to provide them with access to the riches of the net. The riches of net meanwhile have been provided by Americanstranger symbolman, the folks at DU and people like me that have built businesses out of providing content to net users.

Why should we turn around now and let telco fat-cat bosses complain that we the creators of the wealth and richness of the web are "USING THEIR PIPES FOR FREE".

They have been "USING OUR CONTENT FOR FREE FOR YEARS" to sell internet services to their customers.

This is not an argument about technology. It is an argument about

- freedom of speech
- equity
- campaign finance corruption
- an underhand (all too typical) attempt by the fascist corporatocracy to steal the commons.

Care for a rebuttal... I am happy to engage....

[sweetheart]

32. regulation of telcos

I think the british have worked out the best way to set up a regulator for this area:
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/media/news/2006/04/nr_20060421

The ofcom - office for communications represents the public interest in all
electronic media, and is positioned to regulate convergence as internet, TV, radio
and other platform services blend together.

The airwaves are a public good, so i won't argue the gist of your concern.
We have every right to have free speech unfettered in the medium.

The fairness doctrine, once lost on TV ruined the medium as a public good.
It seems this is a similar effort to destroy the internet's public-good value,
*IF* bandwidth turns out to be scarce.

It is also slightly fair, that users who use the most bandwidth, pay
for it, and i'm curious how you could see that happening without
undermining "takebackthemedia.com"

[Joe Fields]

35. Gee, in this particular day in age, you feel there is no reason

to be paranoid?

[sweetheart]

39. observation

i see no reason to act on paranoia. I'm still reading
this howard zinn article, but i think this article has set
a new level of penetrative insight, especially how he
designates "class" distinctions within US society that
are not spoken for.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/34984

Of course such persons have every right to be concerned,
and they will be overruled, because they bought in to
the original lie that the government is "theirs".
It is a corporate government of the rich, and by
recognizing it as not "ours", we don't buy in to its
checks and balances. And there is only 1 balance left,
the mob. Then the mob stands in the french street and
blocks reasonable democratically endorsed legal evolutions.
There the mob stands for sillyness.

And here, the mob stands for intelligence.. and all laws
and all things that criminal government, its congress and
all the bought corporate agents of the fascist state are
all suspect hiding in their boardrooms with their nazi uniforms,
waiting to stick a dagger in.

When goodwill is lost, what society.

[leftchick]

15. k&r

why are the dems rolling on this?? $$$$$$$! :grr:

[autorank]

16. This is the big rip off...they won't get away with it. Write, call, visit

This is our chance to put the phone companies where they belong, as a marginal utility with a guaranteed 10% profit margin.

They do not innovate, they simply acquire ... with that 10% guaranteed profit from all those years.

They can be stopped. This is flying under the radar but not for long.

GREAT POST althecat HIGHLY REOCMMENDED FOR ACTION

[IndyOp]

37. Autorank - Clarification on the Internet bill, please?

If it makes it through the House committee on Wednesday, then it still has to be voted on on the House floor and in Senate committee and on the Senate floor? Or has it already gone through the Senate?

I've already signed the MoveOn petition and will call CongressCritters today - I am just wondering, because complete knowledge of where we are in this battle can only help us.

:hi:

[livvy]

19. We are the media. Without the internet, truth would only exist in ....

whatever form was approved by those that wish to control. K & R for us.

[Robbie Michaels]

63. Kick

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[Peter Frank]

20. This thread needs to be pinned (to the top of General Discussion) ...

Anyone in favor?

If you are please notify the mods by PM:

Skinner -- (PM) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=send_mesg&u_id=100801

Elad -- (PM) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=send_mesg&u_id=128469

Thank you.

[althecat]

26. All those in favour say aye

Aye...

[annabanana]

24. we should drown Pelosi with this too! . . . (link)

As well as our own reps..

http://www.house.gov/pelosi/contact/contact.html

[tiptoe]

27. k & r!

[althecat]

28. Republicans Vote Down Net Neutrality Proposal - 6th April 2006

Republicans Vote Down Net Neutrality Proposal

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=27B774F1-8C09-4987-A597-99201BEB6B23

Republicans on a US House subcommittee yesterday voted down a net neutrality proposal, which would have limited broadband operators from prioritizing content and services on their networks and charging for it.
Some Democrats and a slew of heavy Internet companies fear that the absence of net neutrality laws opens the door for a two-tiered Internet -- with a fast lane for those willing to pay for priority content and a slow in which operators could deprecate services to encourage a switch to the more profitable tier.

... snip...

A House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee yesterday voted 23 to 8 to reject the Democratic-backed proposal to add net neutrality rules. Before the hearings, chief executives from Amazon.com, Google, Microsoft, eBay, Yahoo and InterActive Corp sent yet another letter to the subcommittee chair, urging Congress to tighten the language on net neutrality.

... snip...

Yesterday's hearings did little to narrow the gulf between the two parties. Afterwards, Democratic senator Ron Wyden said: "The special interest groups are pulling out all the stops to ensure a two-tiered Internet that will benefit special interests at the expense of American consumers."
"I will do everything in my power to oppose legislation that does not include strong net neutrality protections."
The full House may vote on the bill as early as June, and the Senate will likely vote on it shortly afterwards.

Funny how the sun usually shines out of Bill Gates and Google's backside - not only because net entrepreneurship is one field in which the USA can still claim pre-eminence - but now they are apparently talking shite....

Nothing to see here move along....

[althecat]

31. Final kick for the night....

Battle will be rejoined in the AM... ANZAC day....

:kick:

[Pharaoh]

38. K&R

[snappyturtle]

40. K & R--THANKS!!!

Is nothing sacred? Going to e-mail members of the House Commerce Committee....RIGHT NOW!

[Mnemosyne]

41. kick

[izzie]

42. We all knew it would come. I have e-mailed my Congress people

weeks ago and will also call. This is the time we really have to worry as I believe Congress will now try to get every thing through as they are worried they may not hold Congress.

[jukes]

44. K&R

but my congressman will just send another form-letter thankning me for expressing my opinion y advising me to fuck-off.

[snappyturtle]

46. I just tried....

to send a e-mail comment to the energy/commerce committee and got back: that my request couldn't be processed at this time because "Can't open merge file"??????????????????????? Guess I'll try contacting the members individually. I get replies from Dayton and Coleman, my state senators, and they either re-iterate what the issue is ( no dah!) or tell me they've all ready made up their minds and they, essentially, don't give a damn what I think!!!! Who in the hell do they work for????

[Peter Frank]

45. You can hit the alert button to reccomend pinning this page...

...but you will have a record of your request in your outbox if you PM:

Skinner -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=send_mesg&u_id=100801

Elad -- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=send_mesg&u_id=128469

[babydollhead]

48. kick

[Kolesar]

50. but you have to click on it because its meaning is not in the heading..eom

[lonestarnot]

51. Bastards!

[The2ndWheel]

52. Makes sense

This thing couldn't last forever. That would've been the exact opposite of how we've seen power operate for the last couple thousand years. Civilization crushes diversity. A center of power attempts to make everything else like itself.

Even if this attempt fails, there will be another, then another, then another, until the job is done.

[Catherine Vincent]

53. Kick!

Please don't destroy the internets!

[grottieyottie]

54. Interesting.

I read the article with interest - and I wonder whether a 'tiered' Internet will remain a US phenomena and if so - whether that will set back the US in terms of broadband penetration.

In the UK now - broadband prices are being DRIVEN down and even being offered free.

Holland has 75 percent households within reach of broadband and 25 percent using it. The EU has an active plan to bring broadband to rural areas around the continent.

The US may lead the world in absolute broadband numbers - but a tiered internet in the US would edge out a large proportion of the market when TV and the Net begin to merge.

In other words, creating a hierarchical internet will make the US less competitive in the New Global Economy if the rest of the world is not following the same rules. And chances are - they will not - especially in Europe where there is an enormous effort on the part of both EU and national legislators to bring broadband to the masses.

It's interesting to note that it was only a few years ago when Bill Gates was in Europe telling various think tanks and politicians that Europe has to catch up or they will be left behind - this was in the days of being charged per minute for local calls and the Internet which made it ridiculously expensive to go online. In Canada and the US local calls have always been flat rate - so monthly fees for the net were reasonable.

The US is now trails South Korea, Canada and much of northern Europe in rolling out high-speed Internet access. And it shouldn't and can't afford to fall farther behind.

Some use the statistics to argue for greater telecom liberalisation, while others argue for more active intervention by the FCC. Backers of strong net neutrality regulation say it is necessary because some broadband providers are sniffing around a new pricing plan that would speed up service to Web-based companies willing to pay an extra fee. But it's insane - because a two-tiered Internet would hinder small companies offering innovative services from competing with those who can afford to pay for speed.

Or pay not to be slowed down. In other words - you pay chump - or you won't be doing business on my block.

It seems these Democrat and Republican legislators were bought and paid for by the likes of AT&T.

Surprised?

[Occulus]

56. They'll probably do something crude and heavy-handed, too,

like charge extra for other domain suffixes. .com and .gov, for example, may be free, while .edu may be free "for students". .gov and .net will be pay-per, perhaps even charging by the bit or megabit. Newsgroups will be right out.

Just examples.

[confuddled]

55. OK, so I wrote to my representative.

Why I even bother, I don't know at this point. I no longer see any hope for salvaging what remains of this democracy through the remnants of the system - legally, peacefully, etc.
Anyway, thanks for bringing our attention to yet another of the endless efforts to sell off and destroy this country.

[librechik]

57. Randi should push this issue as hard as she's pushing the "nuke" test

in Nevada--she's going to be a major victim of this policy when it's implemented.

Just an example: I PAY for my XM access, yet when I try to listen to AAR through the XM internet portal, guess what? AAR is not included in THAT lineup!

When the corporate giants rule our access, they are going to REALLY rule our access.

[SeanQ]

60. This MUST be stopped!!!

As the OP states, if this bill passes it's only a matter of time before access to real news and political discourse becomes as hard on the internet as it is now in TV, Cable and even radio. The internet is the last, international, free press.

I have emailed everyone I have an address for. We already pay for our internet access!

[melissinha]

61. But the Internet is Global right?

How does our Congress have jurisdiction of the internet which is global??? Understanding the imagery of the fact that we send things "over their pipes" how can these companies, own bandwidth???? Can you explain that to me??? How does that translate to global bandwidth.... I am not trying to be snarky just trying to understand.... how can these companies go and control something that serves other countries? I can imagine that many countries would revolt against our country for this.

Am I not seeing something here?????


AND how much do you want to bet that the big telephone companies are payign their fair share of taxes using the infrastructures owned by we the people?

[GoneOffShore]

65. K & R

:kick:

:kick:

[the other one]

66. It will never hold up at the Supreme Court

Not even this supreme court.

[joeunderdog]

78. You shitting me? nt

[Theres-a]

67. K & R

[oxbow]

70. Called my rep just now...

the staffer doesn't know if it will even come out of Committee at this point...still, it can't hurt to send out some warning shots. The internet is one thing they cannot fuck with. Not AT&T, not the Pentagon, nobody! This one belongs to us.

[althecat]

84. That's the spirit :)

:yourock:

[WiseButAngrySara]

71. knr. ....n/t

[Faryn Balyncd]

72. done

done

[BrklynLiberal]

73. Kicked and recommended !

signed petition and called.

[alfredo]

76. Kick If there was a bill name or number, or a good title

to go by, it would be easier to argue this subject.

We need a frame!!!!

[althecat]

83. Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 = Name

[alfredo]

88. Thank you.

I will have to get involved.

[althecat]

86. Does this mean the bill does not yet have a No?

http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Markups/04252006markup1848.htm

The Full Committee will meet in OPEN MARKUP SESSION on Tuesday, April 25, and Wednesday, April 26, 2006, in 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, to consider H.R. ____, a Committee Print on the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006, as reported by the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. On Tuesday, April 25, 2006, the Committee will convene at 5:00 p.m. for the purpose of opening statements. The Committee will reconvene on Wednesday, April 26, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.


....

And if so what does that mean?

[Pryderi]

79. Rupert Murdoch in control of the internet...

[Gabi Hayes]

80. ......

[Nothing Without Hope]

82. Firedoglake piece on this vital issue ***LINK:*** (includes a VIDEO link)

http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/04/24/the-fight-for-internet-freedom
Monday, April 24th, 2006 at 8:40 am

The Fight for Internet Freedom

By Taylor Marsh (guest blog)

The big ISPs want to control the Internet. The battle is over "net neutrality." (http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq) As soon as this coming Wednesday, it could all be set in motion because Republicans and Democrats are set to make this happen. If you don’t know what it is WATCH THIS VIDEO NOW (http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U), because it effects you. It’s hard to believe, but I’ve been writing on the web for 10 years. That’s a long time, longer than most. In all those years I’ve never heard of anything quite so dangerous as what’s now being debated in the Congress. Matt Stoller (http://www.mydd.com/) will be blogging about the consequences all this week as it plays out. Another site for information is SaveTheInternet (http://www.savetheinternet.com). Josh Marshall has a discussion going on over at TPMCafe (http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/29086). Let me give you an example of how this could play out. If you’re Barnes and Noble and pay the right ISP, your site will open faster than, say, "YourLocalBookStore.com." There are so many things wrong with this idea it’s hard to know where to start.

The Internet is a free flowing, democratic forum where every site is created equal, big or small, conglomerate or start-up. Congress is about to change all that because they like the money they get from big telco companies. The threat (http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat) is bigger than you realize, but there’s more.

(snip - much more)

[Yollam]

85. K & R

This goes hand in hand with the legislation they are working on to clamp down on "copyright piracy" (IE burning your OWN CDS to CD-rom or an iPod).

Pigs.

[Nicole]

89. K & R

:kick:

[PatrioticLeftie]

90. So it begins...

They make a grab at the only outlet they do not control.

[nolabels]

91. Many here at DU have speculated this kind of idea has been..........

rolling around in the fascist corporate heads for the last five or six years. Many here would not have known how we have been sold down the river if it were not for DU and other places like it on the net.

The greedy little bastards never tire of stealing candy from a baby x(

[althecat]

93. NEXT STEPS - Feel free to brainstorm....

Right then...

Clearly DU agrees this is a serious issue that needs action this week...

What are the next steps?

We have two more days till the hearing and then we have the hearing. We want lots of people to tune into the committeee meeting so many that the congresscritters realise there is A BUZZ!

How do we help achieve this?

Can the DU activist Corps help?

Feel free to brainstorm....

[Breeze54]

96. Go here and SIGN!......

Think the Internet Will Always be Open?
Take Action On This Issue

You think the Internet will always be the great freewheeling
information superhighway you've grown to love?

Well, think again.

Media giants want to privatize our Internet.

Take a look below or here---> http://www.commoncause.org/NetQuotes
at what some telecom execs and business leaders had to say,
and then send a message telling them how you feel about the Internet.

Click this Link to send a message!
http://www.commoncause.org/siteapps/advocacy/index.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1372975&action=5382&template=x.ascx

Lot's of Info here at this link!And then pass the word!!
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=190064

[Peter Frank]

102. Done... n/t

[althecat]

98. John Kerry and Howard Dean... Someone should call them on this....

... they read this board and people here know them. What do they say about this?

They should be made to take a position and fast.

[Amaryllis]

107. kick

[Amaryllis]

108. kick

[Blue_Tires]

109. ttt n/t

[sendero]

110. I really think..

.... this issue should become, that is we should make it, the second third rail of politics. Touch our internet, and your political career is over.

The domain secondthirdrail.com is available Maybe it could be a clearinghouse for letters, petitions, other communications to convince our lawmakers that whatever the telcos are offering is not enough.

[Rainscents]

111. Kick!

:kick:

[Gabi Hayes]

112. duh!