Should AT&T be allowed to make "Democratic Undeground"

[Eric J in MN]

run more slowly for its customers?

I say No. It's illegal for them to discriminate against people receiving phone calls. It should also be illegal for them to discriminate against websites.

Phone your Senators' offices and leave a message to support the "Net Neutrality" bill, Internet Freedom Preservation Act, S 2917.

You can find the phone numbers of your Senators' offices at:
http://www.vote-smart.org/official_congress.php?dist=bio.php

[Midlodemocrat]

1. I haven't heard anything about this. Is this actually happening?

Been sort of busy and haven't caught up with the news in about a week. Would you be able to fill me in on this?

Thanks.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Yes, it is. Try this piece from WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/12/AR2006061201493.html
<snip>
Net neutrality advocates fear network owners will cut deals to give some content providers priority delivery, putting those who don't pay at a disadvantage. Phone and cable companies say they will not block Web sites but should be allowed to manage their networks and to charge more to those who want guaranteed fast delivery.

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) is open to consumer protections but is loath to interfere with commercial deals among phone and cable companies and the content providers, a committee staffer said.
<snip>

also googled net neutrality Senate bill for more:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=net+neutrality+Senate+bill

[Eric J in MN]

3. For most of the existence of the web,

"Net Neutrality" was considered the law.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that information services are different from phone services. Therefore, websites aren't protected the way someone receiving a phone call is protected.

Some people including Byron Dorgan (D-ND), John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton want to ban website discrimination. This would restore the status quo we had until last year.

Congressman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) also supports banning website discrimination, which you may want to mention if you call a Republican Senator.


Here is the bill we want the Senate to pass:

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.

[Midlodemocrat]

4. I must confess to being ignorant about this. Thanks to you and the OP

for the assistance. I work in internet research and this could be a real problem.


(been a little busy lately, so I must plead ignorance. My FIL recently passed and my husband had a quadruple bypass last week. Never a dull moment.)

[oscar111]

5. "nationalize the net".. just put the Library of Congress in charge of it

and make the net like another kind of a public library...

free!

after all, educating onesself at the library or online is working at self improvement, which is work to improve the economy.

such work should be open to all who want to work at self improvement.

the RW should see it as "lifting onesself by ones bootstraps".

[Karmakaze]

14. Hmmm I wonder what the Supreme Court thinks Voice over IP is?

It is becoming very common for telephone traffic to be routed through the Internet - is THAT still protected according to them? Or can VOIP transmissions be choked too?

[WhiteTara]

8. this is almost a done deal. We really need to get

the word out. It could end the internet as we know it. Censorship by fees. Call now. Sign this petition
http://action.freepress.net/campaign/savethenet

[OregonBlue]

6. Done, but don't just call your Senator, call your neighboring state

Senators as well!!

[Eric J in MN]

7. Yes. NT

NT

[Nomad559]

9. Check out this video

&t=OEgsToPDskJX4DxH9tIKpJl5WI6boazy

:)

[rhett o rick]

10. Did i misunderstand or what, didn't the HOR already pass a bill to give

the telecoms power to control the internet? And didn't 109 Democrats vote in support? If i didn't dream this, why no outrage? Maybe i got it back wards. Plez help me out here. Didn't 109 HOR Democrats vote to support the Republicans and telecom corporations in controlling the internet??

[bananas]

12. Yes, hopefully the Senate will be different. nt

[smoogatz]

11. What the telecoms claim, if I understand it correctly, is that as they

build new, even higher-speed services--mostly for video delivery--they want to be able to reserve the new fast-lane pipes for providers who are willing to pay for them, and that existing service won't change. But no one believes them.

[Eric J in MN]

20. They can charge whatever they want to connect a server

to the internet.

The issue is: suppose Google.com connect its servers to the internet using Verizon. Should AT&T be allowed to tell Google that AT&T customers will have Google pages load faster or slower depending on whether Google pays them?

It will be legal extortion if Congress allows it.

[mwooldri]

33. Even if Net Neutrality laws are passed, the telecoms could still do this.

They can just develop a new network, that is parallel to the Internet. IIRC AOL was classified as a content provider that provided information - plus a link to the Internet. There was content you could only get at one point by being an AOL subscriber, or a Compuserve subscriber. To connect to the Internet you just went through a single gateway. That is before AOL/Compuserve/et al were Internetified.

A new network could be built, using Internet technology, that allows the existing telcos to reach the arrangement with other companies to allow for faster routing of data over the other network. You could have VerizonNet for your Online Service provider, who provide you with a 20mbps connection to their network (which might include some of the existing Internet content providers) - and you have a connection to the Internet with a limit not exceeding 3Mbps as an example. They could write into the small print that you're sharing a 1000Mbps link with all VerizonNet customers and that is the link to the outside world. It would slow down the Internet for VerizonNet customers as Verizon would route network traffic to its partners over its network and other Internet traffic at its peering point.

Believe it or not it's kind of how the Internet works anyway. Sign up with Time Warner Cable, and you'd get routed over AOL's network as far as the closest peering point to your destination. If one of AOL's gateways goes down, then you cannot connect to that site. However, if you happened to have DSL who goes over say AT&T's network and their gateway doesn't go down then your traffic is likely to get through because there is a clear route between you and the destination peering point. If AOL and AT&T have an arrangement that AT&T would re-route AOL's traffic over its network (there are these arrangements in place) then your traffic either way would get through except it would be slower than normal.

The anti-net neutrality just want to be cheapskates and throttle the Internet anyway without building in any new infrastructure. In which case, why don't we just build a Great Firewall of America and be done with it?

Mark.

[GreenTea]

13. Republican think-tanks have found a way to control liberal flow on

the Internet.... through corporations!

There was no way the right-wing could come right out and blatantly censor liberal sites...... So the republican think-tanks found a back-way to do it, without any fascist finger prints for the public to see...Just use huge republican corporations like greddy AT&T, Verizon, etc... to make it seem like it's only about financial gain for these companies, when it's actually both --- Money (always) and the control of liberal content on the Internet.

They have finally found the way to censor us -- and our shortsighted democrats in congress are going right along with the plan!

[dusty64]

26. I think that that is exactly

it, unfortunately one thing these last few long years have taught me is that the majority of Washington Democrats are corporate tools and no longer give a crap about the People or the Country.

[Eric J in MN]

32. At least in the Senate, a significant number of prominent

Democrats are supporting Net Neutrality: John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, Joe Lieberman, and Byron Dorgan.

[McCamy Taylor]

15. Tbink "President's Analyst."

[i radical]

16. won't end-user technology counter their slowing of connection speeds? nt

[Eric J in MN]

21. No, because if DU loads more slowly a year from now,

we won't know if the problem is caused by our ISP or if it's a problem with the website itself.

The pubic will be in the dark.

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Took me a while but I've decided that I support net neutrality

It's really interesting how different groups feel about the issue

Pro Net Neutrality...

Google
Microsoft
Moveon.org
The Christian Coalition

Anti Net Neutrality...

The Telecommunications Industry

I've heard both sides of the argument and what this seems to come down to is that somebody isn't telling the truth. The Telecommunications Industry says that it is only going to make some sites faster and not make any sites slower. Pro Net Neutrality people say otherwise.

I've decided to side with Net Neutrality simply because of the propaganda ads that I've seen from the Telecommunications Industry. The ads don't define the issue and state their side of the issue they just say "Tell congress to support Internet Freedeom" and since they seem to be inclined to hide what they support with buzzwords like "Internet Freedom", I'm inclined not to trust them.

[Eric J in MN]

22. Supporters of "Net Neutrality" are using the term "Internet Freedom," too.

The bill for "Net Neutrality" is titled the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, S 2917.

[Hippo_Tron]

23. But they aren't running it in propaganda TV ads

At least not ones that I have seen.

[AtomicKitten]

18. I just dumped A&T

and have signed up with Comcast high-speed internet and digital phone service.

So far so good.

[NVMojo]

19. great way to get people on DU to WAKE UP on net neutrality!!

Good job! Now let's see if more sign on to fight this before it is too damn late?

[Eric J in MN]

31. I hope so. NT

NT

[MattP]

24. Comcast is in the axis

Comcast, Verizon, and AT& T are the main sponsors of the bill that passed from what I read. I have Roadrunner and pay month to month but if anything goes down I will go with whoever goes against the flow if anybody. Dial-up won't be affected.

[AtomicKitten]

25. I had no other choice.

I guess it depends where you live.

[Eric J in MN]

27. Every ISP is supporting website discrimination,

as far as I know.

Do you know of any ISPs which promised to adhere to the principle of Net Neutrality?

[Eric J in MN]

28. Please call tomorrow.

There may be a vote on Thursday.

[Eric J in MN]

29. The Senate may pass a mediocre

"Internet Consumer Bill of Rights" instead, which would stop ISPs from blocking content but not from slowing it.

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39369013,00.htm

[Eric J in MN]

30. kick

kick