Jon Stewart on Network Neutrality

Here's a link to a funny bit on how the Internets is made of tubes...

Call Congress Today - Support Markey Amendment

Yesterday, according to sources at savetheinternet.com, the House Rules Committee voted to allow two attempts to add meaningful Network Neutrality rules the Barton-Rush COPE Act. One proposed amendment, by Representatives Markey, Boucher, Eschoo and Inslee, is, apparently, sufficiently strong. Another, by Lamar Smith, is much weaker.

Text of the two amendments -- Markey, Smith.

Please call your Representative today. Ask him/her to support the Markey Network Neutrality Amendment to the COPE Act.

Find your Representative and his/her phone number here. Today is the critical day to call.

HR 5417 Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act

A critical vote is going down in Congress right now and we need you to get phones ringing off the hook on Capitol Hill.

The House Judiciary Committee is beginning to "mark up" a good Net Neutrality bill at around 11am (EST) this morning. Then they're going to vote on whether to bring it to the full floor. Many in the Committee are being pressured by AT&T, Verizon and other major telcos to vote down the net neutrality provisions in this bipartisan bill.

Below are the members who need to hear from you and your readers to support this important bill. Urge them to support the Sensenbrenner-Conyers "Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006" (HR 5417) in the Judiciary Committee -- and to support it without amendment. (Saying without amendment is key as the telcos want to re-write it in a way that guts Internet freedom).

Here are the members who need to hear from you right now:

Marty Meehan (D-Mass. 5th)
Phone: (202) 225-3411
Fax: (202) 226-0771
http://www.house.gov/writerep
martin.meehan@mail.house.gov

Howard Berman (D-Calif. 28th)
Phone: 202-225-4695
Fax: 202-225-3196
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

William Delahunt (D-Mass. 10th)
Phone: (202) 225-3111
Fax: (202) 225-5658
William.Delahunt@mail.house.gov

Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Texas 18th)
Phone: (202) 225-3816
Fax: (202) 225-3317
http://www.jacksonlee.house.gov/

Bobby Scott (D-Va. 3rd)
Phone: (202) 225-8351
Fax: (202) 225-8354
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Chris Van Hollen (D-Md. 8th)
Phone: (202) 225-5341
Fax: (202) 225-0375
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Maxine Waters (D-Calif. 35th)
Phone: (202) 225-2201
Fax: (202) 225-7854
http://www.house.gov/waters/IMA/issue.htm

Mel Watt (D-N.C. 12th)
Tel. (202) 225-1510
Fax (202) 225-1512
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y. 9th)
Phone: (202) 225-6616
Fax: (202) 226-7253
weiner@mail.house.gov

Robert Wexler (D-Fla. 19th)
phone: (202) 225-3001
fax: (202) 225-5974
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Howard Coble (R-NC 6th)
phone: (202) 225-3065
fax: (202) 225-8611
howard.coble@mail.house.gov

Elton Gallegly (R-CA 24th)
phone: (202) 225-5811
fax: (202) 225-1100
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Bob Goodlatte (R-VA 6th)
phone: (202) 225-5431
fax: (202) 225-9681
http://www.house.gov/goodlatte/emailbob.htm

Steve Chabot (R-OH 5th)
phone: (202) 225-2216
fax: (202) 225-3012 (fax)
http://www.house.gov/chabot/email.html

Dan Lungren (R-CA 3rd)
phone: (202) 225-5716
fax: (202) 226-1298
http://www.house.gov/lungren/feedback.shtml

William Jenkins (R-TN 1st)
phone: (202) 225-6356
fax: (202) 225-5714
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

John Hostettler (R-IN 8th)
phone: (202) 225-4636
fax: (202) 225-3284
john.hostettler@mail.house.gov

Mark Green (R-WI 8th)
phone: (202) 225-5665
fax: (202) 225-5729
mark.green@mail.house.gov

Ric Keller (R-FL 8th)
phone: (202) 225-2176
fax: (202) 225-0999
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

A Day to Save the Net

If you use a telephone, the internet
or a television, this concerns your future!

Without net neutrality the network providers might decide to degrade our access to content on the Internet. Everyone everywhere should have free access to everything on the Internet. Should the telco have the right to prevent me from reading Wealth Bondage to protect me from whips and chains? Should they have the right to throttle down my use of Google because they prefer to send me to Yahoo where they can increase their own ad revenue streams? I buy bandwidth from the telco. I don’t want them to be in the position to decide how I use the bandwidth.

David Weinberger has a great video on this topic today.

Cross-posted at listics.

Response From Rep. Baldwin

May 23, 2006

Dear Mr. Stehling,

Thank you for contacting me regarding legislation to update telecommunication regulations. I am happy to hear from you, and I apologize for the delay in my response.

In 1996, Congress made major changes to our nation's telecommunications laws with the goal to encourage the development and deployment of new technologies and services. The telecommunications marketplace looks very different in 2006 than it did in 1996, and there is a desire to open up the cable television market for competition. To explore this issue, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, of which I am a member, recently considered the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act (H.R. 5252).

I had hoped this legislation would comprehensively address the new needs that have emerged in the last decade, while maintaining the goals of universal service, localism, and diversity. Instead, the bill that passed out of the committee is bad for consumers and bad for local communities. My Democratic colleagues and I offered many amendments that would have addressed the shortcomings of the bill, but those were defeated largely on party-line votes. Without these amendments, I believe the bill does consumers and Internet users more harm than good. As a result, I voted against the bill, which passed out of committee by a vote of 42 to 12, and is currently pending consideration by the full House.

One of my main objections to the COPE Act is that it overturns longstanding cable universal service requirements. Currently, cable operators must offer their services throughout the entire franchise areas. Commonly called the "build out" requirement, cable operators must extend the service to all of the public. The COPE Act grants new cable operators access to a community's public rights-of-way without any obligation to serve the entire community. Because the bill eliminates this build out requirement, all national franchisees will be able to select the most lucrative households to serve while ignoring others. This reverses decades of federal policy designed to ensure universal service to communication services. Access should not be limited by location-rural or urban-so strong protections must be in place. During Committee debate, I supported an amendment that would have imposed a sensible build out requirement modeled after existing cable television regulations to prevent discriminatory behavior and ensure that all consumers are able to choose from competing cable operators. Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated.

In addition to abandoning the build out requirement for cable operators, the bill also contains a weak provision purporting to outlaw the practice of "redlining," a practice which denies or increases the costs of service to residents of certain areas. In the COPE Act, as drafted, nondiscrimination is poorly defined and easy to circumvent. As a result, certain neighborhoods or communities could be excluded from the information age. Several colleagues and I offered amendments that would carefully redefine discrimination to include, race, gender, and ethnicity, require that service must be offered within an entire franchise authority, as well as strengthen standards and enforcement at the local level. Again, these amendments were rejected.

Furthermore, state and local governments have historically played a major role in regulating and supervising telecommunications services. The 1996 Act reduced this role in some areas, but retained significant state and local authority to protect consumers from fraud, scams and unfair pricing. Any modification of our telecommunications laws must respect and maintain the important consumer protection authorities of state and local governments. Instead, the COPE Act a undermines the ability of local governments to protect consumers and enforce local matters, making the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) responsible for handling complaints and request for local dispute resolutions. I supported an amendment that would have allowed local governments to retain their authority to determine violations, and to exercise it concurrently with the FCC. This amendment was also rejected.

Lastly, I have heard from many Wisconsinites regarding concerns that network operators may violate the principle of network neutrality, which ensures that the Internet remains open to all and guarantees everyone equal access. I realize the important role the openness of the internet has played in fueling remarkable innovation and the free flow of ideas and expression. I believe the federal government must continue to play a critical role in safeguarding the open and non-discriminatory nature of the Internet. Although the COPE Act contains a network neutrality provision, it is so broadly worded that it fails to provide any specific, enforceable protections. As you may know, Representative Markey (D-MA) introduced an amendment that would have carefully defined what network neutrality means and give it the force of law, as well as containing an expedited complaint process to deal with grievances and violations within thirty days. I voted for this amendment, although it too was defeated.

The COPE Act is now pending consideration by the full House. It is still possible that the bill will change, and I hope that the amendments that were not included in the committee version are given a second chance on the House floor. I know that Wisconsinites want telecommunication policy that protects consumers and ensures the Internet remains open to all. Without these important amendments, I cannot in good conscious vote for this bill.

Again, thank you for sharing your views. Your opinion matters to me. If I can be of service to you in any other way, please do not hesitate to let me know. As a result of the anthrax incidents, all mail sent to Congress is first irradiated. This process causes significant delays. To ensure the fastest response, I encourage all constituents who have access to the internet to contact me through my website at http://tammybaldwin.house.gov.

Sincerely,

Tammy Baldwin
Member of Congress

1022 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2906

10 E. Doty Street
Suite 405
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 258-9800

400 E. Grand Avenue
Suite 402
Beloit, WI 53511
Phone: (608) 362-2800

Appleton Post Crescent on Network Neutrality

Major props to the Appleton post Crescent coming down with an editorial supporting network neutrality before the Capital Times and Wisconsin State Journal. I can't even find an article on the subject in either of those papers. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel doesn't fair much better, but they have at least run two AP articles on the topic.

In case everyone missed the memo, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner has signed onto a bill that would grant an important net neutrality to the telecom bill now before the House. Here is a link to the most recent story on net neutrality and below is the editorial from the Appleton Post Crescent (read the story on their site by clicking here).

Ever heard of "net neutrality"? If you have, you get an "A" in technology geekiness. If you haven't, you might want to listen in.

Net neutrality is the concept that all content on the Internet is treated the same and can move freely. But, through a series of court and Federal Communication Commission decisions, phone and cable companies could interfere with content flow.

It could affect what you're able to see on the Internet and how quickly you're able to see it. And it's a topic that Congress should address.

Phone and cable companies own the "pipes" over which content travels. The fear is that — because they can do it and presumably make more money by doing it — they can create a "fast lane" for content providers willing to pay for it and relegate other content providers to the "slow lane."

Established providers with the money to spend will get preferential treatment on the Internet, while smaller or upstart sites will languish. So what you see on the Internet could be determined by how much someone has spent to have their content delivered to you.

Also, phone and cable companies are in the content and service business, too. There would be little to keep them from sticking their competitors in the slow lane — or blocking their business altogether.

The network providers say net neutrality legislation is a solution without a problem, that competition will keep them from abusing the system. But there's little competition in the industry, leaving consumers with few choices.

Without net neutrality legislation, phone and cable companies would have excessive control over an Internet that was created, has existed and has largely thrived through its independence.

The issue already has come up in Congress because it has been debating a broader telecommunications bill. Though prospects of attaching a net neutrality amendment are uncertain, some members of Congress — including Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. — are working on it as separate legislation.

Any legislation would have to be carefully created to avoid unintended consequences and cause more problems than it would solve. But it's needed.

It might be an obscure, complex issue, but net neutrality should matter to anyone who uses the Internet.

Reply From Rep. Ron Kind

I received a response from Rep. Ron Kind's office in regards to my April 28th email to all Wisconsin members of Congress. Here's his response:

Dear Steven :

Thank you for contacting me regarding telecommunications issues. I appreciate hearing from you.

The House currently is considering H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act, which would be the first major update to the nation's telecommunications policy since the 1996 Telecommunications Act. H.R. 5252 was passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee on April 26, 2006, and currently awaits consideration by the full House.

While this bill takes a step forward in promoting competition in the video market, there are other areas where the committee's bill falls short. I would like the final bill to include stronger build-out requirements so that new providers are not allowed to ignore consumers in rural areas. I also will watch closely the status of net neutrality language, which will decide whether broadband providers are allowed to charge Internet companies for use of their networks.

The COPE Act is designed to allow internet carriers such as telephone companies to offer video service over their broadband networks in direct competition with cable companies. The bill changes current law to allow new video providers to negotiate one national franchise agreement rather than multiple local contracts. Fostering increased competition should offer consumers new services and lower costs.

Again, thank you for contacting me. Be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind when the full House considers H.R. 5252. Please do not hesitate to be in touch with additional comments or questions. I encourage you to visit my Web site, www.house.gov/kind, where you can find updated information, sign up to receive my electronic newsletter, and send me e-mail.

Sincerely,

Ron Kind
Member of Congress

Introduction of the Markey Network Neutrality Act of 2006

Rep. Ed Markey of Massachussets has just introduced the Network Neutrality Act of 2006. Below is what the Markey amendment would do. Read the full text courtesy of his website:

This network neutrality bill has essentially three parts. The first part articulates overall broadband and network neutrality goals for the country, and spells out exactly what network neutrality means and puts it into the statute so that it will possess the force of law. The second part embodies reasonable exceptions to the general rules, such as to route emergency communications or offer consumer protection features, such as spam blocking technology. And the final part of the bill features an expedited complaint process to deal with grievances and violations within thirty days.

The legislation states that a broadband network provider may not block, impair, degrade or discriminate against the ability of any person to use a broadband connection to access the content, applications, and services available on broadband networks, including the Internet. It ensures that broadband network providers operate their networks in a non-discriminatory manner. The bill also ensures that consumers can attach any device to the broadband operator’s network, such as an Internet phone, or wi-fi router, or settop box, or any other innovative gadget invented in the coming years. Moreover, in order to prevent the warping of the World Wide Web into a system of “tiered service,” the legislation will prevent broadband providers from charging new bottleneck fees for enhanced quality of service or the prioritization of bits.

Finally, if a broadband provider chooses to prioritize data of any type, it requires that it do so for all data of that type and not charge a fee for such prioritization. For instance, if a broadband provider wants to prioritize the transmission of bits representing a VOIP phone call for its own VOIP service, it must do so for all VOIP services so as not to put its competitors at an arbitrary disadvantage.

The New York Times on Net Neutrality

The New York Times has weighed in on the importance of "Keeping a Democratic Web." Below is just a portion of the editorial. You need to sign in to read the rest.

One of the Internet's great strengths is that a single blogger or a small political group can inexpensively create a Web page that is just as accessible to the world as Microsoft's home page. But this democratic Internet would be in danger if the companies that deliver Internet service changed the rules so that Web sites that pay them money would be easily accessible, while little-guy sites would be harder to access, and slower to navigate. Providers could also block access to sites they do not like.

That would be a financial windfall for Internet service providers, but a disaster for users, who could find their Web browsing influenced by whichever sites paid their service provider the most money. There is a growing movement of Internet users who are pushing for legislation to make this kind of discrimination impossible. It has attracted supporters ranging from MoveOn.org to the Gun Owners of America. Grass-roots political groups like these are rightly concerned that their online speech could be curtailed if Internet service providers were allowed to pick and choose among Web sites.