[TriLUG] At least Price seems to get it.

[Ben Pitzer]

One piece of this concerns me.  At the end, he addresses his concerns for
the businesses involved, such as content providers, but fails to mention
what effect it might have on non-profits, for example, such as the EFF,
ACLU, consumer advocacy groups, MADD, Habitat for Humanity, etc.  Will they
need to pay for preferential treatment as well?  What happens when Google
and/or Yahoo! start paying enough that all of the other traffic can be
crowded out, or simply ignored because of the provider's need to "serve
their customer's interests"?  How does that affect the poor and
disadvantaged in their access of the Internet through services such as the
public libraries and Internet cafes?  Frankly, I can't see how it doesn't
hurt them.  Can a cable or DSL provider prevent you from downloading Opera
or slow your access to the Firefox site because Microsoft paid them more to
give preferential treatment to IE downloads?  Can Apple pay to steer you
away from alternative online music stores?  And can Time Warner give
pathetically slow access to their competitors sites over their lines because
they didn't pay for that bandwidth?

Frankly, this is very much posed as a business thing, but the only ones hurt
here are small businesses and consumers.  The advantage of net neutrality
has been seen in the ability of Firefox and Thunderbird to thrive as they
have, and in the ability of the less fortunate to have access to the same
advantages that each of us share in terms of information access on topics of
law, medicine, employment, and education.  That this issue is even on the
table in Congress is yet more proof that our government is becoming an ever
more useful marketing tool for business, and that the good of the people has
been relegated to at best a second tier concern.

So seriously, post his crap on your blogs, mailing lists, and send it to
your friends and families.  It may seem like a 'thoughtful' reply, but
frankly, as someone with quite a bit of experience in the political arena
working on campaigns and doing policy analysis, this response is basically
just a hedge.  It's not a position.

Suddenly pissed at our political system again,
Ben Pitzer


On 6/22/06, Cristobal Palmer <cristobalpalmer at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Y'all may have heard about the less-than-happy news from the House on
> Net Neutrality. Perhaps we should call our Senators?
>
> Got the following from Rep. David Price just now. It's pretty good.
>
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> June 22, 2006
>
> Dear Cristobal:
>
> Thank you for contacting me regarding "net neutrality." I supported
> the Markey "net neutrality" amendment and appreciate the opportunity
> to explain my views on this matter.
>
> As you may know, "net neutrality" is a term used to describe the
> principle that all content traveling over the Internet should be
> treated equally by the owners of the networks that provide Internet
> service to consumers. Contrary to recent claims that "net neutrality"
> would represent unprecedented government regulation of the Internet,
> the concept is nothing new. From its inception, the Internet was
> designed to allow everyone with an Internet connection to access or
> provide information, goods or services on an equal footing. This
> free-market design has been largely responsible for the revolutionary
> impact that the Internet has had on global commerce, innovation,
> information-sharing, and so many other aspects of our day-to-day
> lives.
>
> In addition to being embodied in the original design of the Internet,
> "net neutrality" is also a matter of federal law. The
> Telecommunications Act of 1996 classified Internet service as a
> "telecommunications service." As such, it has been subject to certain
> federal requirements, including a provision that telephone companies
> provide equal treatment to all content traveling over their Internet
> networks.
>
> In the years since passage of the Telecommunications Act, there has
> been a significant change in how Internet users access the net. In
> 1996, access was provided almost exclusively over dial-up networks.
> Today, however, most Internet users have switched to broadband
> technologies such as cable Internet and digital subscriber lines
> (DSL), which the 1996 law did not envision.
>
> In 2002, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a ruling
> that cable Internet would be classified as an "information service"
> rather than a "telecommunications service," and thus would not be
> subject to the neutrality requirements of the Telecommunications Act.
> This ruling sparked a legal battle that was not resolved until August
> 2005, when the Supreme Court effectively upheld the FCC ruling.
> Immediately following the Supreme Court decision, the FCC issued a
> second ruling holding that if cable could be considered an
> "information service," then so would DSL. As a result, the vast
> majority of the Internet (up to 98 percent, according to some
> estimates) is no longer subject to "net neutrality" requirements.
>
> In the months since the FCC ruling, several major cable and DSL
> companies have indicated that they may begin offering preferential
> access to their networks in exchange for additional fees. Under such a
> system, the owner of a website or online service would be able to pay
> for faster delivery, increased security, a guaranteed amount of
> bandwidth, or perhaps other advanced services. Content from providers
> not willing or able to pay for these preferential services would be
> delivered to consumers at relatively slower speeds, resulting for the
> first time in a "tiered" Internet in which not every content provider
> would be treated the same.
>
> The current debate over "net neutrality" is essentially a debate over
> whether Congress should allow cable and DSL companies to proceed with
> these plans or reinstate the neutrality requirements that governed the
> Internet until the FCC ruling last year. As you may know, this debate
> has occurred as part of a larger debate over the Communications
> Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act (H.R. 5252). As drafted,
> H.R. 5252 would prohibit broadband companies from blocking or
> degrading legal Internet content but would not prohibit companies from
> moving establishing "tiered" Internet plans.
>
> Because a "tiered" system would represent a significant departure from
> the Internet as we know it, I believe we should weigh very carefully
> the potential effects of such a system. In particular, I am concerned
> that a tiered Internet would provide a competitive advantage to
> certain content providers, essentially eliminating the free-market
> online economy that "net neutrality" has fostered and potentially
> stifling online innovation.
>
> During floor consideration of H.R. 5252, Rep. Ed Markey offered an
> amendment to reinstate net neutrality. The amendment would have
> allowed network operators to offer advanced services as long as they
> treated similar "types" of content the same. I supported the Markey
> amendment, but it was defeated by a vote of 152 to 269. I then voted
> against H.R. 5252, which passed by a vote of 321 to 101. It is unclear
> whether the Senate will take up H.R. 5252 or a similar bill before the
> 109th Congress adjourns at the end of the year.
>
> I hope this information is helpful. Please continue to keep in touch.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> DAVID PRICE
>
> Member of Congress
>
> PS: Please sign up for periodic updates on issues, events, and town
> hall meetings at http://price.house.gov/Forms/EmailSignup.
>
> *** MY OFFICE IS USING AN ELECTRONIC MAIL RESPONSE SYSTEM THAT WILL
> FACILITATE EMAIL COMMUNICATION WITH CONSTITUENTS. PLEASE NOTE,
> HOWEVER, THAT I CANNOT GUARANTEE THE INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT OF THIS
> MESSAGE UNLESS IT HAS BEEN SENT TO YOU DIRECTLY FROM MY CONGRESSIONAL
> EMAIL ACCOUNT: DAVIDPRICE2 at HOUSEMAIL.HOUSE.GOV ***
>
> ***PLEASE NOTE - THIS IS A SEND ONLY ACCOUNT. DO NOT REPLY TO THIS
> MESSAGE. IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, PLEASE VISIT MY WEB SITE AT
> http://price.house.gov/Contact/ ***
>
> --
> Cristobal M. Palmer
> UNC-CH SILS Student
> TriLUG Vice Chair
> cristobalpalmer at gmail.com
> cmpalmer at ils.unc.edu
> ils.unc.edu/~cmpalmer
> "Television-free since 2003"
>
> <tarheelcoxn> iank has trouble with English. his native language is Python
> <iank> Yeah
> <iank>   I'm forced
> <iank>     To indent
> <iank>   My sentences
> --
> TriLUG mailing list        : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
> TriLUG Organizational FAQ  : http://trilug.org/faq/
> TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
>