I posted awhile ago about this, but I couldn't find the post. It may have been deleted. Bill Moyers did a PBS special about this a few months ago called The Net At Risk.

They are still playing it on PBS occasionally but I think you can stream it at the linked website. It is more than just AT&T and Verizon. It is the same 4-5 corporations that control the mainstream media and regulate the flow of information that account for the lack of depth Americans have when it comes to things that adversely affect their lives and the lives of others on the planet.

The advertising will begin and the "analysts" in the media will begin selling the evils of net neutrality to you much like the Iraq War was sold to you and much like they are now camouflaging the casualties in Iraq to claim that the troop surge is working and so many other things that have dumbed down the public.

The internet is the last great "leak" of information that they want to plug. It is no coincidence that over a year ago media moguls like Ruppert Murdoch and several others began buying up massive internet assets. With the same media corporations controlling the internet that control the radio and television airwaves this country and subsequently the rest of the world are screwed. We will have absolutely no place to turn to learn who lies to us in government.

Fight for Net Neutrality to save the internet you now take for granted.

John

Check this out, too.

I'll go further i notices that right after one of those pills got rejected the speeds of my internet and reliability of connection went significanly down as if my cable company (Time Warnes) wanted to show me (and other customers like me) how stupid we were for not supporting that bill -- i assumed in preparation for next round.

Thanks for that Jay.

Much appreciated.

John

craftech:

craftech:

craftech:

craftech:

craftech:

craftech:

craftech:

craftech:

craftech:
You were right about the media not reporting on the cutsy deal written into the Iraq constitution about the USA and England having free access to all Iraq oil for the life of the reserves.
JJK

craftech:
You were right about the media not reporting on the cutsy deal written into the Iraq constitution about the USA and England having free access to all Iraq oil for the life of the reserves.
JJK
========
Now all we need is for Americans to wake up and realize that we can never leave Iraq because of it. Foreign press is the only way they will know or "The Net".

John

I followed the link, and even sent one of the pre-done letters to my local congress-person. Here is the response I received:
_______________________________________________________

Dear Laurence:


Thank you for bringing your concerns to my attention. I appreciate the time you took to contact my office on this important issue and welcome the opportunity to respond.



Introduced by Congressman Joe Barton (R - TX), H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 (COPE), amends the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and contains several provisions that will lower cable prices, increase competition, and provide safeguards for consumers. However, there have been many misleading conceptions about the COPE Act written in the media, and I wanted to take the time to shed some light on the mistruths some liberal groups are spreading.



H.R. 5252 establishes the option of a national franchise for cable companies, which is a substitute for the current system of locally negotiated contracts. Under the bill, a cable company could apply to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for a national franchise and then offer its services to consumers regardless of geographic location. Such a system is more efficient than the current one, as a cable company would not have to negotiate with numerous local jurisdictions, slowing deployment of cable service and increasing prices for the consumer. Local governments will still however receive franchise fees just as they do today. Moreover, by creating national franchises, more cable companies will be in direct competition with one another.



As we move forward in the telecommunications era, companies are offering more services than just basic cable. Cable and telecom companies alike now offer broadband service, voice over IP (VOIP), and other digital services. Under COPE, no company can force consumers to buy VOIP or broadband service as a precondition for buying other services from the company.



However, the most often misunderstood section of H.R. 5252 is the "network neutrality" provision, which is the principle that a consumer has equal access to all sites. The bill directs the administrator of the FCC not to make any rule or law that would establish Internet network neutrality. However, the term "network neutrality" is misleading.



The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet. Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach, when in fact their changes would be the first major government regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely unlikely to use.



It is worthwhile to note, though, that H.R. 5252 does indeed uphold the basic principles of network neutrality. For one, the bill prohibits any service provider from denying or degrading access to any legal website . Users of the network are also entitled to any service or device of their choice as long as it does not harm the network. If any company violates those principles, the FCC will hit them with a penalty of up to half a million dollars for each offense .



America is the most industrialized nation in the world, but is ranked 16 th in broadband deployment. Many contend this is due to the lack of competition among carriers that resulted from a Federal Communications Commission decision during the Clinton Administration. This decision required carriers to open their lines to all broadband deployment and prohibited carriers from negotiating and enforcing contracts. Essentially, this ill-advised decision removed competition from broadband deployment and led to the removal of any incentive for providers to invest in new networks. This decision has since stymied broadband deployment in the United States .



The reality remains that Congress passed the Telecommunication Act in 1996. In the past decade, the world's communication devices of evolved from foot-long, analog cell phones and spotty dial-up Internet service to razor-thin digital cell phones and video conferencing through voice over Internet protocol services. If changes are not made to the 1996 Act , America will continue to lag behind nations such as Korea , Sweden , and Canada .



H.R. 5252 passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 321-101, but the Senate failed to take action on the measure before Congress adjourned this year. Rest assured that as we revisit telecommunications legislation in the 110 th Congress, I will continue to listen to the opinions of the experts and my constituents. I appreciate your comments and hope to receive them in the future.



Throughout my tenure in public service, I have always kept an open door and an open dialogue with my constituents. As the 109th Congress addresses the many challenges facing our nation, I hope you will continue to share your thoughts and views with me. Accordingly, I encourage you to visit my website at http://brown-waite.house.gov to email me and find useful information about our 5th Congressional District.

It is my honor and privilege to serve the people of Florida 's 5th Congressional District and my offices and staff are here to provide you with any assistance you may need.

Sincerely,

Ginny Brown-Waite
Member of Congress

It almost sounds reasonable.
Maybe my knowledge is a bit dated but my understanding is that the costs of providing the long haul parts of the internet are relatively minor compared to the final hop (the bit to your home / office). And doesn't those sourcing the large amounts of traffic pay for their bandwidth already just as we pay for what we receive.
The guy(s) in the middle also charge for carrying traffic and the more there is the more they get. Where it seems to get a bit muddy is when you actually use all of what you're paying for and for certain HD video is going to tax things. So maybe there's some validity in the argument. Except...
Most of the planets long haul links are running with most of the fibre dark, could it be those owning them have been doing that deliberately to bolster their case for more return on investments that have already been funded?
Is there perhaps a good case for the public purse to be funding these thhings anway?
That's certainly a hot topic in the leadup to our next federal election.

Bob.

The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet. Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth. Accordingly, these same Internet sites are aggressively lobbying Congress, and liberal special interest groups have seized on this opportunity to garner guaranteed access to Internet services. Coupled with these special interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach, when in fact their changes would be the first major government regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely unlikely to use.

Hmm, IMO this is a bunch of political double-talk. FWIW, I'm going to break it down as I see it.

The problem is that over the next couple of years, large Internet sites are planning to offer high-definition video services, which will use large amounts of bandwidth and clog the pipelines of the Internet. Telephone and cable companies want to be able to charge for such large amounts of bandwidth; otherwise, they will have to pass the costs on to the consumer. These Internet sites obviously oppose such a move, as it forces them to pay for using increased bandwidth.

The way it is now in Dallas is there is a cable company that offers internet access at ~$45 per month for 8mpbs. DSL is ~$40 for 6 Mpbs to ~$20 for 1.5Mbps. That would prove we are already paying for bandwidth. Couple that with the fact that ISPs sell bandwidth by the meg to sites such as youtube. So, actually they (the cable/phone companies) are already getting paid on both ends and vary the price depending on the bandwidth. Why would they need the 'law' just to continue business as-is unless they had an alterior motive?

Coupled with these special interest groups, Internet website lobbyists are distorting the picture by calling pay-for-performance fees a punishment to small business websites, using the term "network neutrality" as the hands off approach, when in fact their changes would be the first major government regulation of the Internet. Moreover, the changes that telephone and cable companies would like to implement consist of large amounts of bandwidth that a typical small business website would be extremely unlikely to use.

Dang, those are some long sentences! Either way they are passing laws that will control the internet. Why are they saying the law for equal access to all sites is not to be considered? A law FOR the cable and phone companies is OK but not the various multitudes of people that do business via the internet? If a website pushes 2TB a week then they are already paying for the bandwidth. Why should the phone/cable companies be allowed to determine what bandwidth a particular site can push?

The state reps around here are idiots and routinely take residence in whichever business pockets are deepest. I don't have any faith in ANY Texas rep when it comes to anything technical. I made the mistake of emailing one of the state reps here. He then kept SPAMMING me about how spam is good for business! I had to get 'militant' against his email address/website before finally getting off that list (javascript that submitted about ~250 remove requests per day for two months).

This is a complex issue politically. I believe the real issue is that about every phone and cable user has already paid for High-band for 10 years thru fees, taxes, equipment tax assessments..etc.. and we have not received it. Plus Big Band Internet users have been paying for "volume" for over 10 years.

Now the same providers asking for more money and control for what they already have been paid for. These providers should be force to perform or refund the monies, +$$$10billion, to individuals they assessed them on.

The only real good issue in this bill is the national franchise vs local. The term "network neutrality" is becoming a buzz word that means something different to each side, but lacks a real common meaning. I would not vote against apple pie, mom or "network neutrality" .

Sincerely,

Ginny Brown-Waite
Member of Congress
=======================
Same old lame Republican distortions I hear on the floor of the House and Senate every day on C-Span. "Mergers and corporate consolidation is good for the consumer. Not doing it is bad for them." Same argument is being used now for the merger between Sirius and XM Radio that would result in only one satellite radio corporation. "Good for the consumer".

The language of the bills is always filled with holes and dubious details that INVITE abuse. The sponsors distort it and the news media repeats the distortions to the public to get them support. It's sick and it is destroying this country systematically and dragging the rest of the world into the gutter with it. The legislation passed in the 109th Congress alone will take years to undo. All of it passed under "closed rules" (no ammendments) with one hour for Democrats to look it over and often in sessions held at 3:00 AM. Now that the Democrats control the House, hopefully they will stop such legislation although it can be introduced in the Senate where Republicans are filibustering every bill the Democrats bring to the floor requiring a 60% vote to move it forward and a President ready to veto it if it makes it that far.

The 1996 Republican sponsored Telecommunications Act was the worst piece of legislation Clinton ever signed, but NOT for the reasons Joe Barton is spewing. Barton's bill would have allowed the phone companies to enter the broadband market nationally without getting approval from local areas and then pick who gets broadband based upon "profitability" under the "guise" of preserving Net Neutrality which it doesn't actually do. Typical Republican bill. The titles of their bills were almost always the opposite of what the language of the bills contains like H.R. 4600 that was entitled The Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Health Care (HEALTH) Act of 2002. It was actually one of two TORT REFORM BILLS that reduced a patient's ability to sue for malpractice. The Republican argument on the House floor was that if doctors don't have to worry about being sued for malpractice they will lower their fees and fess up more readily if they screw you up medically. Therefore it "helps" the consumer. And as usual, the news media never exposed the bill for what it really was. Small example of typical Republican legislation. They kept passing legislation that screws the public. The news media covers for them. They lie during their campaigns. The news media covers for them. Result: The public votes their hangman back into office.

Media consolidation is the reason for ALL of the problems we face in the US because the public does not know what is going on and they are directed by the news media to put pressure on the wrong people and not put pressure on the right ones. 50 independent media companies before Ronald Reagan took office combined with the Fairness Doctrine (that ensured opposite views be presented to the public) provided a broader spectrum of information to the public leaving it up to their intelligence to sort it out.

Reagan did away with that and started the trend toward media consolidation that has resulted in 5 companies controlling the media and the false information flow that has dumbed down an entire nation. That is why in the one short week that Reagan died and was honored in Washington, the very same nightmarish news media empire he helped create brainwashed the entire nation into believing he was the greatest president who ever lived and the polls NOW reflect it whereas they didn't before that.

So your Republican rep is using the same old "liberal" term he probably can't even define to lump those who know what is going on into a convenient category for Pavlov's dogs to salivate over and bark in repetition to the other dogs while their smart trainers laugh behind their backs.

Common sense should dictate here:

Less competition in any form (the internet in this case) is NOT good for the consumer. Too much of a chance for government interference and collusion. Fall for the lies and we are all screwed. The last information "leak" (the internet) will be sealed forever. Watch The Net at Risk as I stated above.

John

It's not just information either.

When John D. Rockefeller was working his ass off to to get his oil business going (this was in the pioneering days of oil), he was stymied for a long time by the railroad barons who had a monopoly on transportation. They saw the potential to snag the profits for themselves by controlling the transportation.

The same thing can happen with the Internet. Murdoch say buys the two U.S. companies that control virtually all Internet access here, together with Avid as an investment, then raises the Internet bill for anything related to Sony Vegas to double or triple, to protect his investment in Avid.

And ditto for protecting his other investments, and it's not much different from what the railroad barons got away with for a long time.

So it's a business issue too.

This thread has brought the key issues of the debate to the forefront. AFAIK, the main beneficiaries of this largess are the telcos, not the cable companies.

But the most important thing is that we already pay for our bandwidth (based on the speed of our "always on" connections) and this bill would only make us pay more. It's like a "preferred provider" in health care: you go to "one of our doctors [pay-per-view content we offer]" and you'll pay merely for the delivered content. You go "out of network to a non-contracted doctor [any other place on the Internet with similar content, perhaps free or cheaper than your telco charges]" and you'll have to pay a surcharge to the telco for network transport.

It's the biggest scam that could be foisted on the public. As others have pointed out, we've already paid for the infrastructure, and logically any additional infrastructure costs should be built into the speed tier one subscribes to. Selective and intentional slowdowns of outside Internet content providers is bad public policy.

Bob.

This thread has brought the key issues of the debate to the forefront. AFAIK, the main beneficiaries of this largess are the telcos, not the cable companies.
==========
No, it's both since both now manage internet connections and all the discussions have been about both as well. Click on that link to PBS on the Moyer's special "The Net at Risk" and browze through the pages and links to see what has happened. Also in terms of a recent update to the legislation from that page:
------------------
UPDATES

The mid-term elections appear to have moved net neutrality nearer the top of lawmakers' priority lists. Legislation opposed by net neutrality advocates died with the 109th Congress. In January of 2007, Senator Byron L. Dorgan, Democrat of South Dakota, and Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, reintroduced pro-neutrality legislation to the new session.

There were also crucial developments in the matter of neutrality and media mergers in late 2006. AT&T's 2006 bid to merge with Bell-South which ran into trouble with federal regulators. Federal Communications Commission Commissioner Robert McDowell refused to participate in the agency's vote on the proposed merger - which led to further debate among commissioners. The upshot for net neutrality? AT&T filed a "letter of commitment" with the Federal Communications Commission in which it promises to observe Net Neutrality principles for at least 24 months as part of the settlement which let the merger go forward.

The letter states in part that AT&T:

commits that it will maintain a neutral network and neutral routing in its wireline broadband Internet access service. This commitment shall be satisfied by AT&T/BellSouth's agreement not to provide or to sell to Internet content, application, or service providers, including those affiliated with AT&T/BellSouth, any service that privileges, degrades or prioritizes any packet transmitted over AT&T/BellSouth's wireline broadband Internet access service based on its source, ownership or destination."
On March 14, 2006 the discussion over Internet governance continued on Capitol Hill as all five FCC commissioners testified in front of the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet. Advocates on both side of the debate pushed for the debate to be at the top of the agenda.

John