Support Net Neutrality

posted by Peter Rothberg on 02/10/2006 @ 6:09pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (46)

Subscribe Now

Think the Internet will always be the freewheeling, democratic information superhighway you've grown to rely on? Well, think again. Corporate media giants are working hard behind the scenes to convince a clueless and compliant Congress to privatize the Internet. The telecom and cable giants want to fence off the Internet with one area for the haves--who will pay a premium to enjoy life in the fast lane--and the other for the have-nots.

As digital democracy expert Jeff Chester wrote on The Nation's site, "The nation's largest telephone and cable companies are crafting an alarming set of strategies that would transform the free, open and nondiscriminatory Internet of today to a privately run and branded service that would charge a fee for virtually everything we do online."

To ward off the prospect of "virtual toll booths on the information highway," an interesting coalition of public-interest groups like Common Cause and Free Press, along with new media companies like Amazon.com, are calling for new federal policies requiring "network neutrality" on the Internet. This would prohibit broadband providers from discriminating against any forms of digital content. In this way internet service providers would be regulated like telephone companies used to be, and couldn't simply decide to block their customers' access to legal websites.

Net neutrality wouldn't completely neuter the threat of Internet privatization but it would be an important victory in maintaining the Internet's public sphere. Congressional hearings took place last week. Congress will vote on the issue sometime relatively soon. Now is the time to make your voice heard. Free Press has a good action letter. Click here to tell Congress to protect freedom and openness on the Internet by supporting net neutrality. And click here to read and circulate background info detailing why the stakes are so high in this battle.

Comments (46)

Ok, child of the 80s here...but...

couldn't any number of independent ISPs just set up, anywhere in the world, and you get your service from them?

Not starting a fight, really curious as to how either "corporate domination" OR "government mandates" would work on Internet Service Providers?

Posted by Mask at 02/10/2006 @ 10:33pm
Mask,

The cable and telephone companies own the wire that connect you to your server, (that connects you to the web).

They (the wire co.s) want to be able to control what content you recieve over them. They are far from that point, but they are working on it.

If they move slowly and quietly enough, the complacent masses won't even notice, til it's too late. (Just offer 'em free music downloads or 'ringtones' or pay per view 'reality TV'. FREE, for 30 days!!) The cell phone companies are already breaking your cell phone to force their content on wireless networks. Soon the wired companies will cry 'no fair'....and soon wireless will be more pervasive, limiting access for small ISPs.)

How depressing. (I think you're starting to rub off on me. Not your politics, but your depression.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/10/2006 @ 10:51pm
plus "anywhere in the world" is good to access the web...but you gotta access your isp too. International long distance for web browsing?

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/10/2006 @ 10:52pm
my ISP is a cell phone company and for the past year if I try to load Google it just won't load ... but yahoo will?

Posted by zhong at 02/11/2006 @ 02:24am
And all this time I thought the main REAL threat to the Internet's virtually open society was the United Nations grab for power attempting to take control of the Internet away from the United States and place it securely in their own hands!

Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/11/2006 @ 01:54am

Interesting. Where did you read that? I read alot of the tech rags and political rags. I missed that one. Several articles on the teleco.s.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/11/2006 @ 08:03am
Ok, understand the "wires" thing...but why not a satellite connection?

I mean, can't go through a TRAILER PARK without seeing a mini-sat dish bolted to the side of the double-wide....so they're not that expensive?

Posted by Mask at 02/11/2006 @ 09:52am
Do any of you or does the author know which way Congress is leaning so far?

I'm also curious how major news organizations factor into this. Where do they stand? Are they in cahoots with the telco and cable industries? Will they benefit if ISPs take control of what we see or will ISPs start filtering out news about, say, gay rights or pro choice issues? If there is no network neutrality, won't an ISP in the Bible Belt end up having the right to block news that interferes with their so-called "family values" and thus stifle the already biased mainstream media even more?

Would it also means that int'l sites can be blocked, such as anything coming from Iran or N. Korea?

Would Wal-Mart, U.S. drug companies, other big giants collaborate with the telecos and cable cos. to block consumers from buying lower-priced meds on the Internet or a lower-priced gadget from a competitor?

It sounds like the consequences are like the cookie-cutter strip malls with a "standard" choice of shops with all mom & pop stores but a thing of the past.

What's the real extent of the danger?

Posted by nedaintp at 02/11/2006 @ 10:37am
Mask,

It is a matter of tw0 way communication. Satellite isp is already available...but pricey.

The method of connection, is not the issue. It is your "portal" to the internet. The server connected at all times, that your isp owns. That gives you access to 'thenet'.

The issue is control of the portal, not so much the 'wires' or other methodolgy.

---------------------------------------------

NEDAINTP,

I don't think it is censorship, that is an issue. It is access for a flat fee. Access to everywhere, not just pay services offered by your isp.

I don't think it a censonship thing (to my knowledge.) Just a money thing. (Although, if you are prone to paranoia, I guess it would matter how much you isp donates to whatever party.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/11/2006 @ 12:33pm
MALCONTENT3: See this regarding your question on United Nations/Internet

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007381

Posted by RonS at 02/11/2006 @ 12:52pm
The collective corporate mission is to privatize EVERY resource, everywhere, no matter what the cost to the environment or humanity. Whether it rightfully belongs to them or not. What made you think they would stop at water? Privatizing the Internet commons is probably as close as they will get to privatizing the air we breathe. Not that they wouldn't charge us for all for air if they could figure a way.

Posted by NOYB at 02/11/2006 @ 3:17pm
"Not that they wouldn't charge us for all for air if they could figure a way." -- Posted by NOYB 02/11/2006 @ 3:17pm

We're already paying for air, just not by the lungful.

The Internet is made up of many pieces. I did a Java project for GTE Internetworking, who provisions circuits for the likes of AOL. It was a provisioning package that would help them provision and track circuits. (I wasn't alone, my partner also worked with me to create over 100,000 lines of code on this mission-critical project.)

Your lonely little computer must have a modem somewhere to connect to the "wire" that connects to an ISP's server. The ISP rents a connection to the "backbone" of the Internet at some bandwidth.

The Internet "cloud" consists of lots of high bandwidth (fiber optic and microwave) connections and of a bunch of sophisticated routers. It's worldwide and of distributed ownership.

I pay for the "wire" and for the ISP server. The ISP passes along the cost of their connection to the backbone and makes a profit. My costs run around $800 per month.

Because I don't use AOL or Earthlink or Netzero or any other of the biggies, the corporations will have a hard time affecting me. If someone does get ahold of my ISP, then I can switch to another or find some like-minded people and create my own.

Unless, the "wire" gets regulated in some way. Fortunately, wires are dumb and can't, by themselves, limit your access to anything (except by having low bandwidth). The ISP server can do this, but you should be able to select an ISP that doesn't do that to you.

Someone could jump into the Internet cloud to ISP connection and mess that up without most people being any the wiser.

So, as best as I can tell, people should stop using AOL, Earthlink, Comcast, etc. for their connections and start seeking out independent vendors like (in Massachusetts) Cape.com or Speakeasy.net (most of country), etc. We all have to watch out for a regulation that affects the Internet backbone routers or the ability of the independents to connect to the backbone.

Regarding satellites, the cost is way more than DSL or cable.

Posted by adr at 02/11/2006 @ 4:08pm
The sky is, to our eyes, 'blue', as a consequence of the atomic interaction of molecular nitrogen with sunlight." -- Posted by ZERO 02/11/2006 @ 1:06pm

Actually, it's due to Rayleigh scattering by microscopic particles in the air. Being a fourth power effect, blue is scattered 16 times as much as red (ratio of wavelengths being about 2:1). So, setting Sun looks red because of loss of blue from scattering. Sky looks blue because of more blue than red light being scattered down toward us. Without scattering, sky would look black (with stars). With no particulates in air, that's what you'd see. Also explains why you get great sunsets after big volcanic eruptions.

Sorry, just couldn't resist. I know it's not germane to politics.

Posted by adr at 02/11/2006 @ 4:14pm
We all have to watch out for a regulation that affects the Internet backbone routers or the ability of the independents to connect to the backbone.

Posted by ADR 02/11/2006 @ 4:08pm

True. This is why corporate governance is to be carefully monitored. But, one also needs to look for a retrogressive FCC...remember when it was illegal to hook a non-AT&T phone to your phone lines? (people did anyway, but digital networks could be enforcable.) What if telecos are deregulated enough to limit your access to certain numbers? Or not give large phone capacity to small isps? Or charge enough to make rival isps cost irrelevant?

Dishes and recievers could already be made cheaply. But not by amatuers. And a "small satellite ISP" is hard to fathom.

All of that is, literally, off the top of my head...we just need to pay attention. Where else but the internet can you get views from JM to Chimi to JR to libsux...all in one place. It is a TOTALLY non-partisain issue.

Also your isp, can filter your content easily. Sure there will always be workarounds and alot of us will find a niche. But if most people still have AOL etc. you would be shut off from them. (You already are from some of them. You won't 'lose' the internet, it'll fracture, you'll lose content.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/11/2006 @ 6:06pm
Posted by RIO BRAVO 02/11/2006 @ 5:30pm

Interesting. Not sure what your point is. Not disagreeing, if your point is that commitees tend to equal less, than the sum of their parts. Or that we should watch them too.

Global communication is good for everybody. Encourages progress and dissent. Dissent is good, BTW. (,said the malcontent.)

On the other hand, 98% of the content we seek is domestic. And a large part is irrelevant, unless somebody works on that language thing. (They should form a multi-national working group, or somethin'.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/11/2006 @ 6:15pm
Posted by ZERO 02/11/2006 @ 8:02pm

Okay, you've got a good point re scattering.

I learned this information in the 50s and really haven't had a reason to revise it previously. Rayleigh certainly didn't know about dipole moments of N2, and the temporary ones involved were not figured out right away either.

His equations are valid for particulates in the air. These particulates run from a bit less than 10 nm to over 100 mm in size. Visible light (I'm sure you know this) runs from approx 400 to 700 nm. Rayleigh scattering requires that the particle be <0.1 of the wavelength, or less than 40 to 70 nm. Particulates fit well with that value.

N2 molecules (depending on how you measure) are around 0.1 nm and ought to skip the Rayleigh equation. However, long since 1871, physicists have learned about quantum mechanics and found another scattering mechanism. Ain't modern science grand. My apologies for not bringing myself up to date on this topic and my thanks for the opportunity to do so.

Well, I'm out of date, but not totally wrong. If you've ever observed the blue color of cigarette smoke, that's the old-fashioned Rayleigh scattering in action on the smaller particles. Exhaled smoke particles have clustered into larger particles and so it doesn't have a blue tint.

PS: Don't try this experiment at home. It's bad for your health :)

Posted by adr at 02/11/2006 @ 8:37pm
If all you got is to cut and paste using someone else's info...

Well then... You Suck!

Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/11/2006 @ 10:28pm
If all you got is to cut and paste using someone else's info...

Well then... You Suck!

Posted by USAPRIDE 02/11/2006 @ 10:28pm

Not sure what you are talking about. But don't explain. That made perfect sense.

If you tried to explain, that'd probably ruin it.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/11/2006 @ 10:38pm
MAL,

Isn't the whole idea to discuss what we feel and believe in our minds and hearts?

Right here, right now.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/11/2006 @ 10:43pm
Every time I see 17 paragraphs of cut and paste, I just go limp.

Such a lame way to express how you feel about the subject.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/11/2006 @ 10:47pm
RIO should be bounced for being lame.

Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/11/2006 @ 11:40pm
"Every time I see 17 paragraphs of cut and paste, I just go limp."

Posted by USAPRIDE 02/11/2006 @ 10:47pm

Then you're not cutting and pasting out of the right magazines.

You seem civil this evening. Either I have you confused with someone else. (If so, my apologies.) Or you should imediately let us know your exact position, so we can call 911. ;)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/12/2006 @ 12:55am
Why give away what you can charge through the nose for

Posted by Will C. at 02/12/2006 @ 02:53am
On the subject of Net privatization, I saw one glimmer of hope:

Rumours mount over Google's internet plan [business.timesonline.co.uk]

"Dark fibre is the remnants of late 1990s internet boom where American web companies laid down fibre optic cables in preparation for high speed internet delivery. Following the downturn in the technology sector during the early 2000s, the installation process for many of these networks was left incomplete. This has resulted in a usable network of cables spread across the United States that have never been switched on. By purchasing the dark fibre, Google would in effect be able to acquire a ready made internet network that they could control."

But the real possibility remains, that truthseekers may be reduced to Stalin-era samizdat, using smelly old mimeograph machines, and passing the copies around in back alleys before long.

Make sure you smile before the telescreen . . .

Posted by ProudPrimate at 02/12/2006 @ 06:12am
But while the web still lives, we are still in the race -- we are gaining in some respects. If the False-flag nuclear attack on an American city doesn't manage to put an end to elections, there is a groundswell, surging from day to day.

Everybody needs to see this magnificent speech, originally broadcast on CSPAN, by one of the foremost theologians in the US Dr. David Ray Griffin (see text about the speech at David Ray Griffin Reveals Major 9/11 Cover-up on C-SPAN [wanttoknow.info].

You can stream or DL the speech (nice quality) in audio (mp3) or video, Windows Media, or Quicktime at this site Misc. Audio / Video Evidence Exposing the 9-11 Cover Up [911busters.com]

Posted by ProudPrimate at 02/12/2006 @ 06:21am
Kinda off topic here. Just wondering about c-span.

Isn't it odd that the, allegedly 'mainstream' media, have become shills of this administration. And people tune into c-span, govt. produced programing, to get a better grip on what the govts. up to?

Seems a bad precident to me.

Just wondering aloud. (with my fingers.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/12/2006 @ 2:56pm
Posted by Turk33 at 02/12/2006 @ 6:36pm
Hey, another record setting precedent from the Bush administration. This makes Cheney the first vice president to shoot somebody since Aaron Burr.

Posted by Legba at 02/12/2006 @ 8:38pm
Actually, Breckinridge was Buchanan's vice president and he saw action during the Civil War for the confederacy. So Cheney makes three. What a tradition!

Posted by Legba at 02/12/2006 @ 8:39pm
Remember when Satellite TV broadcasters made a good living selling programming to cable suppliers, and if you lived outside of cable service you could spend $3000 for a big dish to watch TV? These big dishes took nothing away from their profits, but General Instruments Corporation moved in and made you pay them for the service you already paid for, and made it a federal crime to watch TV without paying them. What they did was illegal, but they forged ahead, investing $Billions to take control, then told the Congress "its a done deal...we've already done it" and the congress changed the law for them, not for you. Now it costs $40/mo to get CNN, not worth the money, but Link TV, PBS and C-span are necessary for an informed society. Now the same thing is going to happen to your internet service. Greedy rich thugs have already begun to steal public access to the WWW for ransom. Just when you think corporatons control everything in your life, they find still another way to rob you.

Posted by papahoward at 02/12/2006 @ 11:41pm
Hey, it's already happening. "Do no evil" Google is already limiting what the internet users in China can access; how simple would it be to do the same kind of limitation globally? And then how simple to not only discriminate in terms of buying speedier access, but also to target users and send specific messages (advertising) to chosen demographics? If only these corporate telecommunications companies, who are drooling over the perceived dollars they are already counting, had ever been warned about killing the goose that lays the golden eggs! Come on, fellow geese, we must fight this internet takeover attempt...

Posted by SundownLF at 02/12/2006 @ 11:44pm
King George the Turd's pet gargoyal is out shooting helpless little birds while people are dying in his oil wars? Do you trust this fool with the world's most terrible weapons? If he didn't have a pact with the Devil (a Republican) he would have died by now.

Posted by papahoward at 02/12/2006 @ 11:52pm
In the United States the Internet is our only form of honest lobbying. The special interest lobbyists who ply our legislators and other officials with gifts, trips, dinners, parties and political contributions are, in effect, committing bribery - the giving of something to influence an official decision (and a penny is as good as $1,000.). The Internet provides all the people an ability to express their opinions, as provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution's "Equal Protection of the Law" clause.

Posted by Leedee at 02/13/2006 @ 08:52am
Hey, it's already happening. "Do no evil" Google is already limiting what the internet users in China can access; how simple would it be to do the same kind of limitation globally?

Microsoft & Yahoo do it too, and have been for a while: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4647398.stm

Posted by thejman at 02/13/2006 @ 11:44am
Ownership of the median by which cable TV is "broadcast" (sorry can't think of a better word right now) is also a major issue that ties right into this, since they are becoming leading ISPs for "high-speed" internet access.

Posted by thejman at 02/13/2006 @ 12:00pm
Mask,

Ok, understand the "wires" thing...but why not a satellite connection?

I mean, can't go through a TRAILER PARK without seeing a mini-sat dish bolted to the side of the double-wide....so they're not that expensive?

Posted by MASK 02/11/2006 @ 09:52am | ignore this person

MAL makes a good point about satellite net access being pricey, but also (and I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not) those satellite dishes you see all over the trailer park are for television only. As far as I know they are not into the ISP (Internet Service Provider) biz yet.

Posted by thejman at 02/13/2006 @ 12:25pm
Also, many satellite providers will practically give you a dish to sign up for service just like Comcast gives you a "box".

Posted by thejman at 02/13/2006 @ 12:26pm
"Do no evil" Google is already limiting what the internet users in China can access; how simple would it be to do the same kind of limitation globally? And then how simple to not only discriminate in terms of buying speedier access, but also to target users and send specific messages (advertising) to chosen demographics?"

Posted by SUNDOWNLF 02/12/2006 @ 11:44pm | ignore this person

Sundown -

Worked there for a minute, doing exactly what you just suggested - I helped edit keyword definitions that affect the advertising that pops up on your screen dependent on your search terms...

Posted by New Dawn at 02/13/2006 @ 2:00pm
Another scary thing that appears to be on the horizon is so called "trusted computing". See here [cl.cam.ac.uk], here [gnu.org] & here [en.wikipedia.org] for more on trusted computing. Basically YOU lose control of the computer YOU purchased for YOUR own use. You will have hardware & software companies telling you what you can & cannot view/use etc... on YOUR computer. Kinda like the new Microsoft Xbox 360. Microsoft says it's illegal to run any software on it that is non-Microsoft. Users relinquish control of their machines (again, that they purchased for their own personal use) to superusers at large corporations like Microsoft, Intel, AMD (Intel & AMD for those of you who do not know are the two major processor manufacturers/developers for home PCs), IBM, HP & Sun Microsystems among others. That's like GM telling you you can't put any radio you want into your Chevy.

Posted by thejman at 02/13/2006 @ 4:57pm
Decades ago, corporate-level criminals had weeks to bring off their their coup on a largely unsuspecting public. Today, with agitated internet villagers ready to respond in a variety of ways-- most of them rational, coordinated and focused-- we see why the first target of such criminals and their lobbyist buddies in The Best Congress Money Can Buy is to cut the household phone lines.

Posted by alphaa10 at 02/14/2006 @ 12:10am
Gee, isn't about time for Mr Rothberg to dump this thread and start in on HIS version of "Quail-gate"?

Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 12:26pm
No mask. That'd make you far too happy.

And if you seemed happy, we'd have to worry about you.

(And we really don't want to.)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 1:54pm
I think Mr Rothberg may be a little less "driven by the crowd" than some of his friends, MAL.

Posted by Mask at 02/15/2006 @ 2:26pm
Yep. And more likely to be interactive in his own blog.

OK, you're freaking me out. Say something I can disagree with.

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/15/2006 @ 2:53pm
OK, you're freaking me out. Say something I can disagree with.

Eric

Posted by MALCONTENT3 02/15/2006 @ 2:53pm | ignore this person

Uhhhhhhh......I liked Bill Clinton and hope "Clintonism" makes a come-back???

Posted by Mask at 02/16/2006 @ 09:04am
Posted by MASK 02/16/2006 @ 09:04am

That was a big help.

Funny, wasn't that fond of him when he was president...but everyday, he sounds better and better...

(Don't look now, but I sense you losing your meloramatic edge. Think negative...you can do it.)

;)

Eric

Posted by malcontent3 at 02/16/2006 @ 10:42pm
Whenever problems like this come to my attention, I just think "It'll be Ok. The millions of really smart, really freaky tech geeks won't let anything too disruptive happen to the net."

Posted by leftbehinds at 02/20/2006 @ 1:08pm