Anne Broache | Washington | March 18

CNET - The American Association of Retired Persons, better known as the AARP, may be more famous for its lobbying muscle on pension plans and Medicare, but now it's taking up a new platform: keeping the Internet free and open for the age 50-plus set.

The 35 million member group is among a growing list of companies and organizations that signed a new letter Thursday urging senators to require Net neutrality principles by law. Also called network neutrality, it's the idea that the companies that own the broadband pipes should not be able to configure their networks in a way that plays favorites--allowing them, for example, to transmit their own services at faster speeds, or to charge Net content and application companies a fee for similar fast delivery.

"We're not traditionally someone who would be involved in technology legislation and things of that nature, but this has a direct impact on our members and their lifestyles," said AARP spokesman Mark Kitchens.

- Rick

_{"Free your mind, and your ass will follow" - George Clinton}

Marguerite Reardon | San Jose, California | March 15

ZDnet - Speculation that the two biggest phone companies in the country, AT&T and Verizon Communications, are planning to create a tiered Internet system that would require big bandwidth hogs like Google or Yahoo to pay more for their access has become a hot-button issue in the tech industry.

Increasingly, it's also an issue on Capitol Hill, where some lawmakers are developing rules to maintain so-called Net neutrality--also called network neutrality--and prevent the emergence of a tiered system.
- Rick

_{"Free your mind, and your ass will follow" - George Clinton}

Month   Penetration%  Time per person/month
Feb 2003    33        25:33:24
Feb 2004    45        27:52:29
Feb 2005    55        27:49:58
Feb 2006    68        30:35:54
Source: Nielsen/NetRatings

- Rick

_{"Free your mind, and your ass will follow" - George Clinton}

A San Francisco talk show on public radio station KQED had a program on net neutrality yesterday. I heard the first half of What is "Net Neutrality"? It was the first time I've heard this debate in close to plain English, and certainly over the airwaves.

Best metaphor: UPS and Wal-Mart trucks carrying goods down the highway. UPS carrying other people's goods, Wal-Mart carrying their own. That's fine, Wal-Mart should be able to carry their own stuff. But what happens when Wal-Mart owns the road? Won't they try to get their products to market faster? Carve off lanes for their own trucks? Change the speed limit for themselves to create a competitive advantage that pays off the investment in the highway?

Michael Krasny, Host:
Dave McClure, president and CEO of the U.S. Internet Industry Association
Eric Hernaez, CEO of Solegy, a company that provides voice over IP and other next generation services
Glenn Woroch, professor of economics and executive director of the Center for Research on Telecommunications Policy at UC-Berkeley's Haas School of Business
John Sumpter, vice president of Pac-West
Available in RealPlayer format:
http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R603161000

Center for Digital Democracy lots of background, and a "Digital Destiny Campaign"

John C. Dvorak | March 15

...it's like selling public-utility water to people and making them pay more to use it for washing dishes.

PC Magazine - A look at the white papers and articles archived on the Center for Digital Democracy's Web site reveals paper after paper on how the telecom companies want to make the Internet into a tiered service, so that your 1.5-Mbps service is not the same as my 1.5-Mbps service.

These companies are preoccupied with deep-packet analysis. Instead of just routing traffic, the new routers will also determine the nature of the packet. This isn't for security or spying, but to flag Skype and other VoIP calls so you can be charged extra for making them. You can assume that IPTV traffic will be charged differently, too. One of the more shameful aspects of this is that Cisco seems to be promoting some of these ideas so that it can sell more specialized (and expensive) gear.

Michael J. Miller | March 15

PC Magazine - We take for granted the concept of Internet neutrality, the idea that your broadband connection will wing you to any Web site at a pace limited only by the speed of the network. I can only imagine the tangled mess the Web would be if every site had to cut a deal with all the different broadband providers. Yet the current system in which you get whatever information you want as fast as your connection can deliver it is under attack on several fronts.

In our current system, end-users pay for Internet service, and Web sites pay for Web hosting and incoming connections (but not for delivering data). This system has worked so far, but in recent months, executives of several large telco ISPs have suggested that companies delivering information over the telco infrastructure—say Google—should pay for that privilege. And if the information being delivered is bandwidth-consuming video clips and phone calls, they should pay even more.

Jeremy Pelofsky | San Diego | March 20

Reuters - The U.S. telecoms regulator was poised to reveal on Monday whether it would ease numerous regulations on some of Verizon Communications' high-speed, broadband data services for lucrative business customers.

The No. 2 U.S. telephone carrier asked the Federal Communications Commission in December 2004 to lift restrictions for business services such as carrying data over Ethernet and Internet-based virtual private networks, arguing there was sufficient competition.
< ... snip ...>

Verizon's request includes lifting regulations on its business broadband data services that require the company to connect with competing networks, to negotiate just and reasonable terms for its services, and to contribute to the Universal Service Fund, which subsidizes communications for rural and low-income households.

Update: FCC rubber-stamps Verizon request, committee Dems protest lack of vote

Arshad Mohammed | Washington | March 29

WAPO - Internet companies yesterday criticized legislation that would give the Federal Communications Commission only limited ability to stop phone and cable companies from blocking access to Web sites, saying the proposal would endanger the open nature of the Web.

The bill, championed by House Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.), would allow the FCC to decide disputes about Web access only case by case and would bar the agency from writing detailed rules on the subject. Open-Internet advocates said the bill would make the FCC toothless in the area of net neutrality, which is the concept that companies controlling Internet access should not use that power to block or slow particular Web services.

- Rick
_{"Free your mind, and your ass will follow" - George Clinton}

Sean Paul's post:

Joe Barton Is Net Neutrality's Primary Foe (April 3)

in an interview posted at the Fairfax (VA) County Democratic Committee blog.

at the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

From Dana Blankenthorpe's tech blog.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/news?issue=Net%20Neutrality

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues/s2360-109/resource

http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/4

http://www.publicknowledge.org/issues (Note they don't specifically
have a global "Issue" on their main issues list that says "Net
Neutrality" ... they have a lot of it under S. 2360 (but not all of it
there)

http://www.publicknowledge.org/news/events/house-commerce-20060330

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pressroom/releases/pressrelease.2006-04-05.2417194468 (see at the botom of that page they are trying to compile "resources on
Net Neutrality" but it doesn't include all of the above

and I'm not worried that the representatives and the senators will erode the freedoms of the Internet.

Much ado about nothing in my estimation. The United States or any of their capitalistt ventures wouldn't dare to interrupt the flow of information that is shared on the world wide web.

Your representatives and Senators do subscribe to services and they are conversant with what the telecom's are trying to do. They have given the FCC the power to thwart them. FCC will not allow companies to dominate the Internet.

American companies will not dominate the Internet. There would be a world-wide protest and it just wouldn't be achieved.

When you think about it AT&T gets paid twice for their DSL service. AT&T has convinced their customers who only want the internet that they must have a dialtone (not true). So the customer is payng for the dialtone which they don't use in order to get the internet which they must also pay for with a year contract and ETF.

Net Neutrality and the Coming Fight For Internet Freedom

Democrats lose House vote on Net neutrality

Declan McCullagh, for News.com

April 26, 2006

A hotly contested Democratic bid to enshrine extensive Net neutrality regulations in the law books failed Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives.

By a 34-22 vote, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee rejected a Democratic-backed Net neutrality amendment that also enjoyed support from Internet and software companies including Microsoft, Amazon.com and Google.

"I'm concerned about e-mails being blocked from advocacy groups, of all sides," said Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat who supported the amendment. "I'm concerned about start-ups that may be shut down."

While efforts to rewrite telecommunications laws often languish in obscurity, advocacy groups and corporations have raised public alarms about the section of the 34-page bill pertaining to Net neutrality (also called network neutrality).

Opponents of the bill's Net neutrality portion say it doesn't go far enough to target possible errant behavior by AT&T, Verizon Communications and other broadband providers. A "Save the Internet" coalition has even been created and boasts members such as the left-leaning Moveon.org, the American Library Association and the libertarian-conservative group Gun Owners of America.

Where in hell do these republicans get these far out idea for new laws? This bill get passed it's going to spell the end of free discourse on the net and the right wing controlled media is going to silence every left leaning site on the internet or charge them so much $$$ they'll have to close up shop. Anyone know the status of the bill as of today?