OK, folks, the Republic really needs your help on this:
Hey you, reading stuff on the internet … this affects you:
Certain telecom companies, like Verizon, are trying to essentially
establish toll stations on the Information Superhighway, through a
compliant Congress that the telcos imagine they’ve bought. That means
they get to decide, or at least heavily influence, what you see, by
controlling transfer speeds from various content providers unequally. <a
href=”http://www.savetheinternet.com/=threat”>See here for details;
<a
href=”http://point08.blogspot.com/2006/04/fight-for-net-neutrality.html”>sco
has more; MyDD
has plenty; here’s a little <a
href=”http://youtube.com/watch?v=l9jHOn0EW8U”>2-minute video.
Many thanks to my Congressman-down-the-street Ed Markey for doing right.
Let’s make it plain as day: If Congress passes this, the internet
as we know it is gone. Bye-bye. That was fast, huh?
This stuff cuts across ideology and party. Our Differently-Winged friends all use the ‘net
… little help here, guys?
Call your Congressperson on these:
House switchboard: 202-225-3121
Senate switchboard: 202-224-3121
Thank you, Charley, for putting this to out here. This is a major bipartisan issue-everyone should be involved. The internet is arguably the most revolutionary technology to hit mankind this century, and its brilliance lies with its horizontal, egalitarian structure. If this bill gets through Congress, it will go down through history as the most insidious piece of deregulation in history. This will dwarf the Telecommunications Act and the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in the ’80s.
<
p>
In addition to Charley’s info, here’s a URL link to a Moveon.org petition against this act. Thousands have signed so far, add your name to the list!
http://civic.moveon.org/alerts/savetheinternet.html
See the comments I posted about this on MyDD earlier today (and also on TPM Cafe, Democratic Underground, etc.) When talking to congresscritters about this use, drop the term “common carrier” into whatever you say. Tell them we need common carrier protection for the Internet, or that we need to use the common carrier model when thinking about Internet regulation, whatever. Just use the term.
<
p>
It’s a tried and true principle, most of them know about it and know it works. It came from the railroads, and went to the phone companies. It’s a simple principle: those who carry the traffic have to treat those who use their network neutrally. A railroad company couldn’t be allowed to buy a producer of something and then ship their own product for free while charging everyone else from shipping it.
<
p>
By simply reminding legislators that we’re seeking to preserve a model that has been with us for over a century, and worked well, we completely flip the debate. No longer are we trying to explain something they don’t fully understand (how the Internet works), and no longer are the other side’s anti-regulation free market claims given the benefit of the doubt.
I am a longtime member of the Electronic Freedom Foundation, they are lobbying HARD agaisnt this! (I have to plug them, they sent me a cool T-shirt).
<
p>
If any of you are concerned about free speech and the evolving Internet, I HIGHLY recommend the EFF site for info on all KINDS of terrible gubmint schemes.
I can’t find anything about this on the EFF’s web site. I’m on their email list and don’t recall email from them about it. As far as I can tell, they’re not engaging on this issue, or at least not trying to communicate about it. What’ve you seen that I’ve missed?
<
p>
Matt Stoller on MyDD wrote that the telecom companies’ lobby’s “faux libertarian streak has even infected the Elecronic Frontier Foundation, which won’t take a stand on net neutrality (on the board of the EFF is a high profile telecom exec).”
<
p>
I don’t know how true that is, but from what I can find, EFF is indeed staying out of this one so far. And that’s a shame.
Why can’t I find any details any where? What’s the bill number? What’s it actually do?
<
p>
Signing petitions are all very well and good, but writing or calling Congresscritters works better, and I for one prefer to cite a particular bill (“Oppose H.R. 24601!”) when doing that.
<
p>
Not to mention that without a particular trackable bill number, this comes across as just another “End of the Internet, Film at 11” hoax. It obviously isn’t, based on who’s gotten involved, but most people won’t know that…
Perhaps you are too credulous of incredulity. I talked to Ed Markey’s office about this yesterday. It’s called the “Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006”. There is apparently no bill number yet, as it’s still in Committee. This is from Rep. Joe Barton’s site. He’s one of the real villains of this whole thing, an SBC subsidiary masquerading as a congressman.
<
p>
Do take this advice: don’t make the proprietors do your homework for you. It makes us snippy.
…but don’t you think “action alerts” are more effective with this sort of info included? The current parent post urges us to contact our Congresscritters to oppose this, but no bill number or name is given, leaving it up to us to figure out what, exactly, it is we’re opposing.
<
p>
All I’m saying is, isn’t it better that this info be determined once, and posted here with the alert, rather than making all of us figure out the name and/or number of the evil legislation?
OK — will do.
I’ve read through some of the arguments of both sides of this debate, and I don’t see why the telcoms should be prevented from establishing premium internet services. Anyone care to educate me on why I should be against this?