Successful Blog

Here is a good place for a call to action.

Net Neutrality 8-30-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Schumer On Net Neutrality

. . . I’m no fan of Chuck Schumer’s political decision-making, as many of you know. As a legislator, though, he can be great sometimes. . . . he’s out on net neutrality.

“. . . As the Internet continues to grow and evolve, we must make sure that average consumers can still use the web to learn, shop, and communicate. The Internet has the power to enhance one of the most fundamental values of our democracy: freedom of speech. . . . I will oppose the flawed and limiting provisions in Senator Stevens’ bill, S. 2686, which would allow Internet providers to discriminate against the websites of their competitors . . . If the Stevens bill is not changed to protect network neutrality, I will oppose it. Network neutrality has allowed the Internet to be an engine of economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech. Eliminating it would be a serious mistake.”

This is a very very good thing. A thank you call to his Washington office at 202-224-6542 would help Schumer understand that net neutrality is something voters care about.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-22-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

The Internet Consumer Bill of Rights

A Bill of Rights follows the U.S. Constitution to protect us from the depredations of a powerful government to which we have ceded authority. The existence of a Bill of Rights assumes that there’s a powerful entity against which we need protection.

In the draft Stevens bill, the Consumer Internet Bill of Rights assumes that the broadband network access providers are powerful — but it’s not clear that the IBR provides much protection.

First, labeling: users are “consumers” (not creators) or “subscribers” (think packaged content), and the IBR doesn’t apply to video services “in which Internet service is not the primary service.” Because the chief goal of this amendment is to put the incumbent telcos in a position to become broadband video service providers, this exception substantially lessens whatever protections the IBR creates.

The preamble re-uses language that leads into Section 230 — a section that shields interactive computer services like Yahoo! and eBay from liability for material created by others — to suggest that network providers should not be subject to regulation. This is the call of the network companies: protect us from regulation, and you’ll be protecting the internet! If there were true competition for broadband access, that call might make sense — as it is, it seems cynical. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-16-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

The Internet Must Die

The guy behind the brilliant techno remix of Sen. Ted Stevens’ “Series of Tubes” speech has released another pro-Net Neutrality song inspired by the Alaska senator’s rantings.

BoldHeaded:

To piggy-back on the huge success of our last parody of Ted Steven’s techno remix, we released a new track to our podcast subscribers last week

This time, Senator Ted Stevens pulls no punches and reveals his true objective. Hear the geeks speak out!

Link

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-4-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Net Neutrality By the Numbers

That leads us to the first number today, 60. That’s how many votes Stevens needs to round up before he can bring his bill to the floor. Senate rules require 60 votes to cut off debate on legislation. Otherwise, practically speaking, the bill is dead. So, the Senate leadership has told Stevens he must have the votes in hand to cut off debate before the bill will be brought up for debate. . . .

[snip]

The flip side of the issue is our second number, 41 (corrected from the earlier mathematically challenged version.) That’s how many Senators are needed to keep the bill off of the floor. The objective of those favoring Net Neutrality is not to kill the bill. Rather, we want to fix it and make it better, but the chances of that happening are better if negotiations take place and agreements are reached before the bill gets to the floor than after it gets to the floor. . . .

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 8-3-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding these links to the Net Neutrality Page.

Stevens Scrambling for Anti-Net Neutrality Votes

Stevens is still trying to force a vote on his inaptly titled telco give-away bill, the Communications, Consumers’ Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 (S. 2686). But he’s not having much luck so far. . . .

he article singles out Santorum, DeWine, and Chafee as resisting efforts to push the bill to the floor before the elections. Not only are they hearing from constituents on this issue, they are raking in some serious cash from moneyed interests on both sides of the debate. They really don’t want to have to vote on this before the election. . . .

AT&T’s Whitacre: ‘Nobody Gets a Free Ride’

“This thing is growing at a rate that nobody would imagine,” [AT&T CEO Ed] Whitacre said of the market demand for bandwidth. He said AT&T networks are now handling 5.6 Petabytes of data every day. “There’s more and more content, and you need more and more bandwidth, and somebody’s got to build it.”

“If you build it, you have to make a return on that,” he continued. “Nobody gets a free ride, that’s all.”

This kind of language, of course, leaves open the possibility that AT&T will (or already does) offer some of its customers a better ride across its access networks in exchange for fees. But it doesn’t necessarily mean the provider would block content that it disagreed with, which is a fear that most net neutrality backers discuss the most.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE

Net Neutrality 7-20-2006

by

Net Neutrality Links

I’m adding this link to the Net Neutrality Page.

Net Neutrality On Life-Support.

It’s clear to me that net neutrality is on life support. If Ted Stevens is any indication of how well these issues are understood by the people allegedly paid to represent us, expect to hear him and his cronies echoing this ad’s message when they vote to do to net neutrality something they would never have done to Terri Schiavo.

The problem is that in addition to net neutrality, the communications bill is also dealing with the issue of “red lining” and broad band access to disadvantaged communities. The lobbyists for the cable and telco interests have focused on splitting the digitial “haves” from the digital “have nots” in their effort to kill net neutrality. So far they have succeeded. That is why the Markey amendment didn’t pass in the House. The people hoping to get high-speed access are looking at the bill as a way to protect their right to access, while we are arguing about access to content.

–ME “Liz” Strauss

Related
NET NEUTRALITY PAGE