"Net Neutrality" and "Democratic Underground"

[Eric J in MN]

Imagine if AT&T told Skinner: pay us big bucks, or we'll slow down "Democratic Underground."

Skinner probably couldn't come up with the money, and DU would run slower.

AT&T is currently barred from doing this by a temporary FCC order for "Net Neutrality," but that will expire soon.

Do your Senators support "Net Neutrality" (banning discrimination against websites)?

Find out here.

[havocmom]

1. Excellant illustration

you do good work :thumbsup:

[Eric J in MN]

3. Thanks. NT

NT

[w4rma]

2. Sen. Joesph I. Lieberman (D-CT)

Waffling on Net Neutrality
Call Sen. Lieberman now at 202-224-4041
Say: "I urge Senator Lieberman to protect Net Neutrality, which prevents the largest phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into a private tollway. Senators Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan plan to offer a pro-Net Neutrality amendment to Senator Stevens' telecommunications bill (S. 2686) on the Senate floor. I urge the Senator to support the Snowe-Dorgan Net Neutrality amendment. Please vote 'no' on S. 2686 unless language is added that prohibits broadband network operators from creating a tiered Internet."

On May 2, the Senator made this statement:
"Any congressional efforts to reform telecommunications law must not result in higher prices for consumers. For that reason, I support efforts to increase competition in the telecommunications marketplace in order to achieve lower costs for consumers. Please be assured that I will keep your views in mind should legislation affecting net neutrality come before the full Senate for debate."

[Eric J in MN]

5. The Talking Points Memo website lists Lieberman as a supporter.

I don't know what they based that on.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/net-neutrality.php

People in CT should call Lieberman's office and ask if he'll vote to sustain the "hold" by Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) against the telecommunications bill until "Net Neutrality" is added.

[kaygore]

11. Excellent point!

[Eric J in MN]

6. Ned Lamont isn't necessarily better on this issue.

In this interview, Lamont says he doesn't want websites blocked completely, but implies that a Tiered Internet (fast lane and slow lane) is acceptable:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2006/6/1/115351/2889

Jonathan Singer: Let's talk a little bit more about telecommunications. Again, your background is in that area. Specifically, you've worked in the cable industry. I was wondering if you had some thoughts on so-called "network neutrality." I know a number of cable companies, the cable industry in general, is pushing for an opportunity to make more of a profit off of data that is sent over their wires, over their cables, over their fiber optics. Yet there is a concern that by allowing them to tier the internet, it will decrease Americans' access to certain information, perhaps on political reasons or perhaps just because companies don't have the money to pay the big Comcast and AT&T, etc. Where do you come down on the net neutrality debate?

Lamont: As you point out, I started up a company some years ago and we compete with the largest cable companies out there. You mention Comcast and AT&T. We primarily provide service to college campuses. We build systems at probably a couple hundred campuses around the country.

It's very important that you don't allow the ISPs and the large operators out there to determine who gets access to what content. When it comes down to net neutrality, this is a pipe and we're providing equal access to all of the content providers out there. And the last thing you want is large conglomerates picking and choosing who gets access to what.

I can understand where if there's some services that use up a lot more bandwidth than others, there's a tier or cost that's associated with that. But when it comes to content, when it comes to what people can see, everybody has equal access to that, and again you can't have, again, conglomerates picking and choosing and making those choices on behalf of consumers. That would be wrong, like de facto censorship.

[jsamuel]

4. This is huge, call your Senators (Dem and Repub)

[WePurrsevere]

7. Hillary supports it ... Schumer is "undeclared". I'll call them both....

one with a "thank you" and one with a "please support...".

(edited to add :kick: and "R" #5 btw. B-) }

[cprise]

8. I am puzzled why this isn't a bigger issue on DU.

When sites like DU, RawStory, dailykos, and hundreds of blogs become practically unusable it seems to me that hardly anyone here will really understand just what was taken away from them.

If you don't know what the difference is between the Internet and the World Wide Web, don't know what a "domain" is and how it differs from an IP address, then count yourself as an incurious dolt who can't be bothered to learn what keeps most of your daily activism and business humming these days. Presumably you wouldn't know the difference between a combustion engine and a transmission either.

Pay attention to what the INTERNET PROTOCOL is. This is what Internet providers are selling you, and its what they are trying to break when they propose discrimination based on whether people having no direct connection or contract with them are paying extra $$$. Thus an AT&T customer would have his/her Internet associates held hostage, whether those associates are AT&T customers or not.

The PROTOCOL does not facilitate or grant permission to distort the delivery of information in this manner.

Get your fluffy heads out of the arts and humanities snobbery for a few months and take a course or two on Internet technology. Please! Otherwise, you are not doing the rest of humanity any favors by arguing for something you don't understand.


PS - Tell 'Clippy' I said hi.

[Eric J in MN]

9. Yes, data passes through numerous ISPs between

a website and a visitor.

If you aren't a customer of AT&T, you will still get screwed over if AT&T slows "Democratic Underground" data which passes through their lines.

[cprise]

14. Not accurate.

The roles of an ISP and an Internet backbone are not one and the same. So what you said is not literally true in many cases.

Also important is the distinction between a 'last-mile' ISP and an upstream provider.

These are all roles that define the landscape of the Internet. And then there are the effects and expectations of LANs, WANs and VPNs to consider. And that is even before touching on information services and higher-level protocols, concepts that are central to the neutrality debate.

If pro-Neutrality people treat the technical details dismissively, then we will all suffer the consequences. At the very least, people should start learning the history around Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee.

[Eric J in MN]

16. You're saying that as you use this website,

...all the data goes from the website's server to your computer via two ISPs (yours and the server's)?

[yellowjacket]

28. Thank you.

As someone who's lobbied against net neutrality from the very beginning, I am glad to see someone gets it and sees through the "they're gonna block the whole Internet" nonsense.

[entanglement]

29. Tell me about it

Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of http, supports net neutrality
http://news.com.com/2100-1036_3-6075472.html

The principle of treating every packet the same has helped the internet become what it is, and I'm yet to hear a sound argument about WHY it should be changed (beyond the marketing crap and FUD, that is)

[Bill McBlueState]

12. I might have an answer to your question.

If posts about net neutrality tend to be as arrogant, insulting, and full of jargon as yours is, it's no wonder it hasn't become a big issue.

If posts are more like the OP's, framing the issue simply and with a concrete example, without any criticism of the reader, then people will be more likely to get on board.

I say this as one who has pretty extensive training in science and thinks scientists and engineers could do a lot better in communicating with the public.

[cprise]

18. DU is full of science debates containing jargon

...not to mention scorn for people who cannot tolerate accurate handling of "zygote", "fetus", "gestation", "gastrilation", "chromosome", "autonomic nervous system" and "baby" for instance. And it gets much more technical than that. Thank goodness.

Except when it comes to computers and the Internet. Those have mainly been issues for technicians to fix thus far, and certainly jargon is to be avoided under those mundane circumstances. The conversation amounts to "change my oil" or "train our new H1-B person in that thingy-wingy thing you do" (you probably think I jest).

People who would debate and organize around highway legislation without employing any vocabulary beyond "vehicle" and "road" are not only insulting to the professionals they are shouting over, but dangerous as well.

Not this time.

I suggest you and many others here get over the aversion to Internet jargon, and quickly before we end up with a legalistic abortion that Joe and Jane DUer thinks is just dandy until its too late. What has occurred thus far does not qualify as an awareness-raising effort.


At the risk of getting geek-cooties, here are a couple of good sites for those who wish the get a grasp on details of the debate:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/content/papers/pk-net-neutrality-whitep-20060206

http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutral.htm

[kaygore]

10. Well done! Thank you!

[Eric J in MN]

13. You're welcome. NT

NT

[Eric J in MN]

23. kick

kick

[ismnotwasm]

15. It's scary

Is what it is. We can honestly say we are being warned and need to pick the pace up a bit on this issue. The internet may become the last bastion of free speech and if it becomes as controlled as all other media, we're in trouble. We're ALREADY in trouble as it is.

And yes my senators do support Net neutrality, thank goodness.

[Eric J in MN]

20. Senator Patty Murray is listed as undecided.

From
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=senatemap

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Undeclared on Net Neutrality

Call Sen. Murray now at 202-224-2621

Say: "I urge Senator Murray to protect Net Neutrality, which prevents the largest phone and cable companies from turning the Internet into a private tollway. Senators Olympia Snowe and Byron Dorgan plan to offer a pro-Net Neutrality amendment to Senator Stevens' telecommunications bill (S. 2686) on the Senate floor. I urge the Senator to support the Snowe-Dorgan Net Neutrality amendment. Please vote 'no' on S. 2686 unless language is added that prohibits broadband network operators from creating a tiered Internet."

[Cha]

17. Phil Angelides does..

Net Neutrality~
"The freedom of the Internet is under attack. We cannot allow large corporations to erect tollbooths on the Internet Superhighway. The Internet is the most dynamic and innovative means of communication and commerce developed in the last fifty years. We need to ensure that the Internet’s very nature of open access remains protected."
Read More..


http://www.angelides.com/issues/

Hillary made this statement..

"On May 22, the Senator made this statement:
"I support net neutrality...The open architecture of the Internet has been the critical element that has made it the most revolutionary communications medium since the advent of the television."

And, of course, schumer the ol' boltin' joe supporter whatever he runs as is "undeclared" on net neutrality.

[Eric J in MN]

19. Why is Arnold Schwarzenegger in the lead? NT

NT

[savemefromdumbya]

21. I don't think our politicians know what it is 'needs a new name'

need to explain to them

[Eric J in MN]

22. In addition to referring to "Net Neutrality," you can also

say "ban discrimination against webites" and "Support Senator Ron Wyden" and "vote for S. 2917, the `Internet Freedom Preservation Act.'"

[oasis]

24. kick

[CK_John]

25. To frame the issue how about, "Back of the IP Bus". n/t

[Eric J in MN]

26. What is "Net Neutrality"?

http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#what

Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.

Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.

Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.

[tenshi816]

27. The way it's been explained to me (in the UK),

it's not the sites themselves that will slow down, it's customer access to the sites that will slow down. It won't be Skinner who will have to pay more, it'll be the people visiting DU who will be paying their ISPs more money.

[Eric J in MN]

30. In the US, AT&T wants to charge website owners

...to make their websites run faster for AT&T customers.

Giving some websites priority will mean slowing down other websites who don't pay.

People who connect to surf the internet through AT&T already pay AT&T. Website owners who connect their servers through AT&T already pay AT&T. But AT&T wants to add a third bill for website owners to assure that the connection between AT&T customers and the website is fast.

[tenshi816]

32. Sounds like they want

to charge everybody then, doesn't it?

Since I posted last night, I've discovered that there are also "discussions" in the UK about whether to charge site owners as well but that any decision is "in the future". How long that will be, I haven't a clue.

[Eric J in MN]

33. Yes, anyone who wants his or her website

...to load quickly may be forced to pay AT&T and all the other big ISPs.

[lonestarnot]

31. kick!

[Eric J in MN]

34. Thanks. NT

NT

[Eric J in MN]

35. Comic strip.

From
http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2006/07/11/cartoonist-draws-on-astroturf-for-inspiration/

[bdamomma]

36. thanks

both of my senators of RI their views unknown.

[Eric J in MN]

37. You're welcome. Please phone their offices...

...and ask to speak to a staffer about "Net Neutrality" and leave a message that the Senator should support it.