Senators Mull an Internet With Restrictions

[RedEarth]

It may have been the first and last hearing the US Senate holds on Net neutrality--the principle that Internet users should be able to access any web content or use any applications they choose, without restrictions or limitations imposed by an Internet service provider. In the time it takes to watch Wedding Crashers, nine experts on Tuesday galloped through testimony before a handful of Senate Commerce Committee members in a hearing room packed with telecommunications and cable lobbyists.

The experts largely fell into two camps. Representatives of major telephone and cable companies and conservative academics urged government to get out of the way, encourage the growth of high-speed Internet networks and enable Internet system operators to "recoup their investments" without statutory or regulatory constraints. On the opposing side were the Internet "evangelists" and innovators who urged Congress to enact into law longstanding principles that preserve an open Internet where no company can restrict any individual's access to content or place barriers on any lawful application or activity.

Those representing telephone and cable companies promised that they would never--ever--interfere with the public's ability to access any lawful information on the Internet. Walter McCormick Jr., president of the United States Telecom Association (USTA), pledged, "We will not block, impair or degrade content, applications or services" that customers want to access. "Our culture, our history, our business has been focused for more than a century on connecting our customers with those they choose." He added that if a phone customer wants to call Sears, "We don't connect them with Macy's."

Unfortunately, the heads of the companies that the USTA represents have not been making the same promises. Indeed, Democratic Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota noted that the Washington Post story he had read on Tuesday "while eating my Cheerios" cited Verizon vice president John Thorne accusing Google of "enjoying a free lunch" at the expense of Verizon and other network builders.

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060220&s=wexler

[populistdriven]

1. Screw the Network Builders - they will soon be marginilized

by newer wireless technologies and / or Google will buy / build their own global network

[Thaddeus]

3. they will not be marginalized

anytime soon. Though wireless technologies will complicate the scenario in interesting ways, big telco and cable companies will enjoy duopoly gatekeeper status for a lomg time to come. Their push to control content should be a wake-up call to everyone who wants the internet to remain a relatively open medium.

[Uncle Joe]

2. I like the idea of a neutral net,

it is the most democratic from a philosophical stand point, but this very notion concerns me, that those in power don't really give a damn about democracy. If the corporations want to take over the planet and charge admission, I have no doubt some of their minions would support them.

[TransitJohn]

23. Hmmmmmmmm

If the corporations want to take over the planet and charge admission, I have no doubt some of their minions would support them.

Isn't that their plan? :shrug:

[LynnTheDem]

4. Bring on the RESTRICTIONS so I can thump my chest about how FREE

I am!

GAWD BLESS AMERICA! RAHRAHRAH!

[triguy46]

7. Since we are hated for our freedoms...

the sooner we sacrifice the remaining few, the more peaceful the world will be.

[LynnTheDem]

16. I hear ya, bro!

DEAR GAWD let your #1 guy bush-gawd take away the rest of my few remaining freedoms so the world will be more peaceful coz them sub-humans won't hate me for my freedoms. Coz I won't have any!

Gawd bless bush-gawd!

[AX10]

5. Keep the Internet free.

[0rganism]

6. Damn, Verizon, it's not like Google doesn't pay for its ISP access

Google buys its server bandwidth same as anyone else. Shee-it. What a bunch of dickweeds. They want to double-dip on their already-vast franchises? Fuckin' forget it. Nationalize the whole lot of 'em, I say.

[Atmashine]

8. What is un-lawful information?

[tridim]

13. The new Canadian government just shut down Overgrow.com

It was an extremely old and wise website about growing marijuana. There was nothing illegal about the information on the site (It simply instructed people how to grow a plant). I don't grow, but visited once in awhile to look at the pretty pictures of God's favorite herb. I'll miss it. I also know there's nothing I can do to complain, lest I be arrested for supporting an "illegal" site.

If anyone thinks progressive/Liberal/left-leaning sites like DU are safe, think again.

[ConcernedCanuk]

20. I doubt the government shut it down

.
.
.

A complicated legal procedure would have be adhered to - our Leaders can't act unilaterally up here . .

And this article might be of interest to you >>>

"Richard Calrisian" of Overgrow and Heaven's Stairway Disappears

by Jodie Giesz-Ramsay (08 Feb, 2006)

Did he take the money and run? Or did "RC" go into hiding?

The owner of Heaven's Stairway Seeds, CannabisWorld.com and Overgrow.com has apparently dropped his websites and businesses, and has taken off with everything.

No one knows who "Richard Calrisian" is. No one has come forward with information about the websites. There have been no busts, no arrests linked to the owners. The servers seem to be reachable, but are not hosting the websites anymore.

[tridim]

21. Well, the story has changed a bit since last week

The original story was about the Canadian feds arresting the owners of several different cannabis sites and shutting them down. Who knows what happened? Sounds like strait up censorship and conservative overreaction to me. Overgrow.com didn't sell seed directly, it was just an information website.

[TriMetFan]

9. I don't understand whats so free? Google and others

still have to pay to use the lines. We have to pay to use lines. So what so fucking free? Nothing. The phone and cable companies still make their money, they just want to control what we can get from Google. Or Am I missing something??????????

[alarimer]

14. They want MORE money

That's all. A multitiered system in which people are penalized for using the web for listening to or downloading music and video. But the real insidious problems is the fact that they want to control access to content.

[KamaAina]

10. An "Internet with restrictions" is an oxymoron

regardless of whether the OxyMoron is carried on it, tee hee.

The Internet, as designed, will interpret censorship as damage and route around it accordingly.

What the greedheads are talking about here is not the Internet but something else entirely: a series of VPNs (Virtual Private Networks) that they can control. One large and well-known VPN is AOL. That's right, AOL is not the Internet; it merely offers you a gateway to the Internet.

[triguy46]

11. With the googles and yahoos of the world

willing to allow China to dictate access and content, the model exists. Since we cannot be trusted by el presidente forlife, we should not be surprised.

[TriMetFan]

12. Chine is not a "Free Country".

:sarcasm:

[triguy46]

28. Yep, and apparently we aren't either. n/t

[mitts]

15. great point

The option of logging onto a Ted Turner free network will always exist as long as you have the wires or wireless capablities.

[ixion]

17. Keep the net free: educate a congress critter

oh, wait, they don't educate so well, sorry.

[Canuckistanian]

18. The internet is to be replaced with a "Telescreen"

Whatever that is.

[CatholicEdHead]

22. Live Faux News broadcast 24/7

With full screen streaming if you cannot pay for TV.

[Canuckistanian]

25. You mean I have to pay to turn it OFF?

Where do I sign?

[RazzleDazzle]

26. Ever read 1984?

If not, you might consider it.

[Canuckistanian]

27. Yes, I have.

AND seen the terrible movie of it AND listening to Mike Malloy read it every night.

[dennis00]

19. they better not to take away my freecell

New FreightTrain verse:
When I'm dead and in my grave
No more freecell will I crave
Place some modems at my head and feet
So I can chat with who's got my seat.

[4nic8em]

24. Bloggers

mull a Senate with restrictions...