Break up AT&T.

[Eric J in MN]

When AT&T gets too big, it's a force against the public interest.

AT&T has gotten huge recently through the merger with SBC, Southwestern Bell, etc.

Today, a Senate committee failed to pass Net Neutrality on an 11 to 11 vote. (Ties means an amendment doesn't pass.)

Net Neutrality would have prevented AT&T from discriminating against "Democratic Underground" and making it run more slowly.

Instead, AT&T can now treat the connection between DU and its customers as low-priority, and the connection between other websites and its customers as high-priority.

Break up AT&T

[megatherium]

1. Great idea! AT&T should sell off its NSA unit first. nt

[Eric J in MN]

3. With AT&T so huge, it makes it easier for the Bush Admin. to use

it for spying.

[Jawja]

9. I'm going to put my

tinfoil hat on and speculate that this is the reason that Southwestern Bell (based in Texas) is busily gobbling up the Baby Bells and AT&T - to consolidate the industry to the point where the majority of the public can be spied on. Not only with phone records, but with internet traffic as well (emails and URLs that are visited).

It is not lost on me that this Texas based operation is in probably working on behalf of the interests of the Bush Crime Syndicate and consolidation of communications access is deliberate for the purpose of keeping track on what we do. :tinfoilhat:

[0007]

23. No tinfoil hat is needed. Your right on and corporate American

is here big time. Look what the power companies are doing to the average American citizen.

We're so screwed!

[Atman]

2. ATT is doing TERRIBLE things in Connecticut, too

They want to bring cable service to CT, but they don't want to have to abide by cable television laws because they claim they're a phone company, and will be delivering their content via phone lines instead of "cable." So they lobbied (bribed, lied, cajoled, strongarmed, etc) the CT regulators into allowing the to set up shop with virtually no restriction. They can cherry-pick neighborhoods they want to serve, they won't be subject to certain taxes, etc. ATT absolutely SUCKS.

[Eric J in MN]

4. No public access stations and no non-profit stations? NT

NT

[Atman]

5. Nope. Cable laws simply don't apply to them.

They have been allowed to go only into "high quality" neighborhoods, too. It really is amazing what happened, just about two weeks ago. The regulator were "got to." I can see no other reason for any so-called "regulator" to feel such an anti-consumer arrangement would be good for anyone but ATT.

[stepnw1f]

6. Break Up All Conglomerates

and never give them the same rights as American citizens.

[Truthiness Inspector]

7. Gaah

I hate AT&T. It seems like no matter how many times you switch carriers, in the end, AT&T mananges to rear its ugly head and take over your service. I've lost count of how many times this has happened to me in the last 6 or so years. :mad:

[Eric J in MN]

8. No one has been saying NO to corporate mergers during

the past 6 years.

[Eric J in MN]

10. If AT&T's internet division were broken into a thousand pieces,

each of those pieces would have less ability to hurt the web.

[American liberal]

11. I HATE AT&T!

I currently have it for phone and DSL. They keep insisting that SBC bought AT&T, not the other way around, but decided to go with the AT&T name because of better name recognition. I told rep. they should have considered name recognition vs. NEGATIVE name recognition.

Are you aware that AT&T recently changed its privacy policy? Your phone records are now considered the property of the company, in the form of business records, which gives the company the right to do whatever they want with records that track your personal phoning habits! In other words, they can turn over your phone records to the NSA or any other govt. entity that asks for them, without the inconvenience of a subpeona!

DOWN WITH AT&T! (Cingular cell service is also AT&T)

I would be grateful for any suggestions in the Chicago market. I'm considering Vonage for phone service (anyone have any experience with them or any other Internet-based phone company?), but am at a loss for which Internet provider I should go with. I'm not too thrilled with Comcast, either (too expensive). Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!

[Avalux]

12. Why? Their commercials are so heart-warming -

I know they really do care about me and want to make my life easier. :eyes:

"The branding campaign will center on a new tagline--"Your world. Delivered."--as well as the song "All Around the World" by British rockers Oasis. No dollar value was given for the advertising barrage."

http://news.com.com/Big+ad+campaign+to+usher+in+new+ATT/2100-1033_3-6012123.html

:puke:

[Eric J in MN]

15. A year ago, those commercials wouldn't have bothered me.

It's their lobbying against "Net Neutrality" and desire to discrimate agaisnt websites which makes them one of my least favorite companies.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

[burythehatchet]

13. Been there done that

It spawned six more ATT's

[Eric J in MN]

14. It's something which needs to be repeated every 20 years or so.

AT&T has merged with SBC and it's planning to merge with Bell South.

It's better for consumers if there are 6 competing companies than one company.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

16. Committee vote means nada

it still has to pass the House and Senate.

Call them, send letters. This is not over.

[readmoreoften]

17. NET NEUTRALITY FAILED?

Sorry to yell, but isn't that a big deal?

[Eric J in MN]

18. Yes, it's a big deal. John Kerry writes:

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/06/30/stopping-the-big-giveaway-by-john-kerry/

On Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn’t get the job done.

It looks like that’s the fight we’re going to have.

The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer.

It will not stand.

[readmoreoften]

19. So what the fuck is going to happen now?

This sounds like its really bad.

[Eric J in MN]

21. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) has put a hold on

...the telecommunications bill.

There probably aren't 60 votes to end a filibuster.

A best case scenario is:

No telecommunications bill before the 2006 election, Democrats gain Senate seats in 2006, and a telecommunications bill after the 2006 election which includes Net Neutrality.

(That isn't a prediction, though.)

Please phone your Senators' offices and leave a message for the Senators to join Senator Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) in his hold against the telecommunications bill until it has Net Neutrality added.

[readmoreoften]

22. I'll do that.

Jesus. If we don't retake the senate, or if it goes to the senate before Nov. What are the chances the net will be saved?

[Eric J in MN]

24. I'd say the chances that this Congress will ban discrimination

...against websites is about 0.

It might put into law that ISPs can't block websites completely. Or that ISPs can't "degrade" websites (leaving it ambigous whether slowing a website and/or limiting its bandwidth is to "degrade" it.)

Or that the FCC can write "Net Neutrality" regulations (since FCC Chair Kevin Martin supports a Two-Tiered internet, those regulations won't do much.)

Therefore, it might be for the best if the issue carries over into 2007 (if there are Democratic gains.)

I want no discrimination against websites, which is what the following bill would accomplish:

Internet Freedom Preservation Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 2917 IS

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2917

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 19, 2006

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. OBAMA, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Internet Freedom Preservation Act'.

SEC. 2. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 12. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

`(a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers- With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--

`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;

`(2) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers;

`(3) provide and make available to each user information about such user's access to the Internet, and the speed, nature, and limitations of such user's broadband service;

`(4) enable any content, application, or service made available via the Internet to be offered, provided, or posted on a basis that--

`(A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, including with respect to quality of service, access, speed, and bandwidth;

`(B) is at least equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth that such broadband service provider offers to affiliated content, applications, or services made available via the public Internet into the network of such broadband service provider; and

`(C) does not impose a charge on the basis of the type of content, applications, or services made available via the Internet into the network of such broadband service provider;

`(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization; and

`(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.

`(b) Certain Management and Business-Related Practices- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a broadband service provider from engaging in any activity, provided that such activity is not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a), including--

`(1) protecting the security of a user's computer on the network of such broadband service provider, or managing such network in a manner that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service;

`(2) offering directly to each user broadband service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service, at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user's connection;

`(3) offering consumer protection services (including parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, or other similar capabilities), if each user is provided clear and accurate advance notice of the ability of such user to refuse or disable individually provided consumer protection capabilities;

`(4) handling breaches of the terms of service offered by such broadband service provider by a subscriber, provided that such terms of service are not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a); or

`(5) where otherwise required by law, to prevent any violation of Federal or State law.

`(c) Exception- Nothing in this section shall apply to any service regulated under title VI, regardless of the physical transmission facilities used to provide or transmit such service.

`(d) Stand-Alone Broadband Service- A broadband service provider shall not require a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of any broadband service offered by such broadband service provider, to purchase any cable service, telecommunications service, or IP-enabled voice service.

`(e) Implementation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this section that--

`(1) permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section; and

`(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of any complaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown.

`(f) Enforcement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall enforce compliance with this section under title V, except that--

`(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4); and

`(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.

`(2) SPECIAL ORDERS- In addition to any other remedy provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any appropriate order, including an order directing a broadband service provider--

`(A) to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation of this section or the regulations hereunder; or

`(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(g) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:

`(1) AFFILIATED- The term `affiliated' includes--

`(A) a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another person; or

`(B) a person that has a contract or other arrangement with a content, applications, or service provider relating to access to or distribution of such content, applications, or service.

`(2) BROADBAND SERVICE- The term `broadband service' means a 2-way transmission that--

`(A) connects to the Internet regardless of the physical transmission facilities used; and

`(B) transmits information at an average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least 1 direction.

`(3) BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `broadband service provider' means a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.

`(4) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE- The term `IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection capability such that service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network

`(5) USER- The term `user' means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of a broadband service, takes and utilizes Internet services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.'.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON DELIVERY OF CONTENT, APPLICATIONS, AND SERVICES.

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Federal Communications Commission shall transmit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives on the--

(1) ability of providers of content, applications, or services to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;

(2) ability of competing providers of transmission capability to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;

(3) price, terms, and conditions for transmitting and sending such information into and over broadband networks;

(4) number of entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks; and

(5) state of competition among those entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks.

[Swamp Rat]

20. ... with a 100 meter long baseball bat.

[unhappycamper]

25. Judge Harold Greene already did that once in 1982.

http://www.bellsystemmemorial.com/att_divestiture.html

Looks like it needs to be done again.

[Eric J in MN]

26. Let's make it a traditon.

We can start by celebrating the 25th anniversary of the breakup of AT&T by breaking it up again.

Then break it up more often in the future.

[unhappycamper]

27. Excellent idea.

Too bad there is not an effective anti-trust unit in the Justice Department.

I'm sure that Thomas O. Barnett is a sterling fellow. :sarcasm:

[Eric J in MN]

29. Yes, we need a Justice Dept which busts trusts, not

one which greenlights massive mergers.

[lonestarnot]

28. Those fuckwads!

[Eric J in MN]

30. I liked AT&T before they pushed to discriminate against websites,

but now I don't.

Support "Net Neutrality." (Net Neutrality means that ISPs can't discriminate against websites such as "Democratic Underground" and make them run more slowly.)

[Eric J in MN]

31. NSA spying using AT&T started before September 11.

From Tom Tomorrow:

Holy crap

Aravosis is right — this is huge (if true):

The U.S. National Security Agency asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, lawyers claimed June 23 in court papers filed in New York federal court….

“The Bush Administration asserted this became necessary after 9/11,'’ plaintiff’s lawyer Carl Mayer said in a telephone interview. “This undermines that assertion.'’

It also kind of undermines the assertion that warrantless spying will help protect us from acts of terror, doesn’t it?

[Eric J in MN]

32. Matt Stoller article on politics of "Net Neutrality"

From
http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/29/13346/5943

John McCain left his vote with a staff by proxy, and wasn't there for most of the hearings. Always the showboater, he came in only to offer his own amendment, and for final passage of the bill. His own amendment was a pet issue of the Christian right, a la carte cable TV, which was destroyed by 20-2. He also voted against net neutrality and for passage of the final bill, per his orders from the Republican establishment. John McCain 2008 showed up, not maverick McCain. Quel surprise.

When the vote came, we held on for an 11-11 tie, keeping all the Democrats.

[Eric J in MN]

33. Cool video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPap8ijDv5g&search=net%20neutrality%20rocketboom

[Eric J in MN]

34. kick

kick

[Eric J in MN]

38. kick

kick

[Eric J in MN]

39. kick

kick

[Eric J in MN]

35. kick

kick

[kentuck]

36. I just received a collection notice from them which I do not owe?

What should I do??

[Eric J in MN]

37. If the bill is wrong, call them to straighten it out.

Later, if you can switch to another company instead of supporting AT&T, then please do.

I'm currently an AT&T customer, but I'm planning to switch by the end of the year.

[kentuck]

41. I tried for 2 years...

I have talked to people in India, and their supervisors, and I have written letters, all to no avail. Then I get this collection notice? I was finally able to talk to some employee for the Collection agency but she was there to just collect. I don't know what I should do??

[Eric J in MN]

42. If the bill is wrong and no one at AT&T will help, then

...maybe you should contact your state's Better Business Bureau or Consumer Protection Agency or whatever.

[Trekologer]

50. Dispute it

Inform the collection agency, in writing, that you dispute what AT&T claims that you owe and why. Be prepared to have documentation supporting that claim. Then, AT&T is required to provide the collection agency proof that the claimed debt is really owed. If you can not furnish this proof (or you can refute that through documentation of your own such as that you paid it or that the charges are bogus) then the collection agency can not collect from you.

One cavet though. It seems that the company can elect not to provide proof to that paticular collection agency and request that they stop attempting to collect but then go to another one. Essentially "shop around" with different agencies until you get fed up and just pay. Sprint did this to me. They sent a bill that they claimed I owed (I canceled my cell phone service with then and then continued to bill me for two months afterwards). I disputed the charge, in wiring, to the collection agency (after several phone conversations where they just blew me off). Sprint did not respond to the agency and went to another one.

Call your state attourny general and the public utility commission too.

[Cleita]

40. When I first got my present telephone, they were my long

distance carrier. I dumped them because they had all these extra charges they kept tacking on and I seldom call long distance anyway. So I got another carrier. Then my telephone company was bought by SBC but I kept my long distance carrier which I believe was Sprint. Two months ago I found out that A.T. & T. is my telephone company and my long distance carrier. It seems I can't get away from them.

[Eric J in MN]

43. That is a great illustration of how AT&T

has gotten to big through mergers-and-acquisitions and needs to be broken up again.

[Eric J in MN]

44. Where are your Senators on "Net Neutrality"?

Are they standing up to AT&T and supporting it?

Find out at:
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatemap

[Eric J in MN]

45. SBC was created by the breakup of AT&T.

Now that SBC and AT&T have merged, we're back to the situation where AT&T is dominating and needs to be broken up for competition and to reduce its control of Congress.

[entanglement]

46. Kick for you, Eric J

Thanks for highlighting an important issue.

[Eric J in MN]

47. You're welcome. NT

NT

[Eric J in MN]

48. FAQ about Net Neutrality

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq

[Eric J in MN]

49. Check where your Senatos stand on "Net Neutrality."

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatemap

[Eric J in MN]

51. Both my Senators have yet to declare their positions

...on "Net Neutrality:"
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatemap

[Eric J in MN]

52. "Save the Internet" blog

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/

[Eric J in MN]

53. Song which set words of Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)

...who opposes Net Neutrality, to music:
http://myspace.com/tedstevensfanclub

Support Net Neutrality!
www.savetheinternet.com