The vote on COPE will be about 10pm tonight. Be prepared. I'll try to cover it. If not me hopefully one of the other net neutrality obsessives will.

Wetmachine has a good read up.

Rep. Markey gave a solid speech today. Here it is:

Just added Sen. Ron Wyden's speech text to the bottom of the post.

More on net neutrality here and the really wretched Smith Amendment. Craigslist being blocked by COX, is this a net neutrality issue? Good stuff at the Isenblog too! Finally, an Open Letter from Google's CEO on net neutrality.

Also, if you call your [(202) 224-3121] Representative please make sure you call in support of the Markey Amendment and make sure you name the Markey Amendment by name, because Lamar Smith, my Representative has offered a differnet amendment that says it's about Net Neutrality, but it's a shill bill.

Take action: Call Congress, Write Congress, Blog it or add the logo to your site, and make it your MySpace best friend!

Important debate happening in the House today. Right now actually. Watch it. Wow, Rep. Ed. Markey just tore the Republicans and the Telco Cartel a proverbial new a**^ole.

"We get 20 minutes to debate the future of the internet, vote no on this Republican rule." Excellent ending to his speech.

Must read right here.

More on net neutrality here and the really wretched Smith Amendment. Craigslist being blocked by COX, is this a net neutrality issue? Good stuff at the Isenblog too! Finally, an Open Letter from Google's CEO on net neutrality.

Also, if you call your [(202) 224-3121] Representative please make sure you call in support of the Markey Amendment and make sure you name the Markey Amendment by name, because Lamar Smith, my Representative has offered a differnet amendment that says it's about Net Neutrality, but it's a shill bill.

Good op-ed in the WaPo on net neutrality here.

Finally, after the jump see the Dear Colleague letter from Reps. Eshoo and Markey. Worth a read.

Dear Colleague,

When the House considers H.R. 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement (COPE) Act , tomorrow we will be offering an Amendment to protect Net Neutrality and preserve consumers' access to Internet content and the services of their choice.

Opponents of Net Neutrality have made various claims about Net Neutrality that misrepresent the purpose of our Amendment and the basis for it. Please read the attached summary of several of the most common distortions about Net Neutrality and the real facts about this important issue.

We urge you to support the Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment.

Sincerely,

/s/ /s/

Anna G. Eshoo Edward J. Markey

Net Neutrality: Fact vs. Fiction

FICTION : Net Neutrality rules would be unprecedented regulation of the Internet.

FACT : In actuality, the Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment will not regulate the Internet at all . It only stipulates that the "last mile" broadband access networks controlled by dominant telephone and cable companies cannot unfairly discriminate against web-based businesses and voices. Congress, the FCC, and the States have long recognized that cable and telephone providers must operate under rules and guidelines that protect consumers, innovation, and free markets.

From the inception of the Internet until last summer, it was protected under the nondiscrimination rules at the FCC which required telecommunications carriers to take a "hands-off" approach to the Internet. These nondiscrimination rules were similar to the prohibitions that ensured that Verizon or BellSouth had to treat calls from Sprint or T-Mobile just as it handled their own. Web content accessed through telecommunications carriers was handled similarly – with no discrimination based on the source – and the Internet has flourished as a result.

These rules were lifted, along with a host of other rules applicable to telephone service last summer the so-called " Brand X" Supreme Court decision and subsequent FCC action. The Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment merely replaces the previous non-discrimination rules with similar ones to protect consumers and innovation.

FICTION : Concerns about Net Neutrality are speculative and not based on anything that is happening in the marketplace.

FACT : The major Bell telephone companies are perfectly clear about their intention to implement tiers of paid access for Internet content. They are promoting these plans in the halls of Congress, on Wall Street, and to the American public. Consider the following:

* William Smith of BellSouth: "[Smith] told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc. Or, Smith said, his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth's offering." ( Washington Post, December 1)
* Edward Whitacre of AT&T: "Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?" ( Business Week, November 7)

There is no ambiguity in the phone companies' plans and no need for Congress to witness actual harm before we act. The last major telecommunications legislation was enacted in 1996 – if we pass the COPE Act this year we are not likely to refocus on these issues for another decade. Moreover, the COPE Act actually prevents the FCC from adopting rules to enforce Net Neutrality and relies instead on an incomplete, broadly-worded Commission policy statement.

FICTION : Net Neutrality rules will frustrate investment in advanced broadband networks by telephone companies because they will not be able to recoup their investments.

FACT : The Bell companies were investing in advanced broadband networks prior to the change in FCC rules last August. In addition, the Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Amendment specifically preserves the ability of broadband network providers to charge whatever they want to provide broadband access, video programming, or VoIP telephone services to consumers. Broadband providers may also continue to charge website operators for web hosting and access services. The Amendment merely prevents network operators from charging Internet companies a second time , with the implementation of a new private broadband tax, to reach consumers who have requested access to certain web-based content and services.

FICTION : The COPE Act includes meaningful Net Neutrality protections.

FACT : The COPE Act lacks substantive, enforceable network neutrality rules, and seeks to address this important issue by giving a vague, amorphous FCC "broadband policy statement" the force of law. The FCC policy statement also does not include the needed prohibition against discrimination and would permit broadband providers to break the Internet into "tiered" service. The imprecisely-worded FCC policy statement can be found here: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-260435A1.pdf

Moreover, the COPE Act does not give this policy statement any meaning or elaboration and actually prohibits the FCC from implementing any rules to better define or give any real guidance to network providers, Internet companies, or consumers as to what the statement means.

Instead of protecting consumers with a statutory framework that network operators must follow, the COPE Act would force consumers and web-based entities to file a complaint at the FCC to enforce a vague policy statement. The Markey-Boucher-Eshoo-Inslee Net Neutrality Amendment articulates a much clearer broadband policy and will preserve Internet freedom.

And here is Senator Ron Wyden's Senate speech on Net Neutrality:

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden

NET NEUTRALITY FLOOR SPEECH

UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

JUNE 8, 2006

MR. PRESIDENT, IN THE NEXT DAY OR SO IN THE OTHER BODY, THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THEY WILL BEGIN DEBATING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT COMMUNICATIONS ISSUES FACING OUR COUNTRY, AND THAT IS THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET. SINCE THE OTHER BODY WILL BEGIN THAT DISCUSSION SHORTLY AND WE HAVE HAD DEBATE BEGINNING IN THE SENATE COMMERCE COMMITTEE HERE IN THE SENATE CHAIRED BY SENATOR STEVENS, WHO WORKED SO COOPERATIVELY WITH SENATOR INOUYE, I WANTED TO TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND TALK ABOUT WHY I THINK THIS ISSUE IS SO IMPORTANT AND WHAT THE STAKES ARE FOR OUR COUNTRY.

WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS BEEN SO EXCITING ABOUT THE INTERNET. IT HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUSLY DEMOCRATIZING FORCE, ENSURING THAT IN EVERY NOOK AND CRANNY OF AMERICA OPPORTUNITIES ARE THERE FOR AMERICANS TO LEARN, TO BE ABLE TO TAP THE OPPORTUNITIES OF THE FREE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM, TO SECURE HEALTH CARE, AN EXTRAORDINARY ARRAY OF OPPORTUNITIES. AND THE REALITY IS WITH THE INTERNET, AFTER YOU HAVE PAID YOUR ACCESS CHARGE TO USE THE NET, YOU GO WHERE YOU WANT, WHEN YOU WANT FREE OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE YOU HAVE PAID THAT ONE CHARGE, YOUR ORIGINAL ACCESS CHARGE.

UNFORTUNATELY, TODAY THERE ARE HUGE COMMUNICATIONS LOBBIES, CONSISTING PARTICULARLY OF SOME OF THE MAJOR PHONE COMPANIES AND SOME OF THE MAJOR CABLE COMPANIES, WHO WANT TO CHANGE THE WAY THE INTERNET WORKS TODAY. IN EFFECT WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO IS MAKE CONSUMERS AND BUSINESSES IN OUR COUNTRY PAY TOMORROW FOR WHAT IS FREE TODAY. WHAT HAPPENS TODAY WHEN THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES OR CONSUMERS PAY THEIR INTERNET ACCESS CHARGE, THEY CAN GO WHEREVER THEY WANT WHENEVER THEY WANT ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT RACKING UP EXTRA CHARGES AND WITHOUT FACING DISCRIMINATION. UNFORTUNATELY, THESE BIG COMMUNICATIONS LOBBIES WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT. YOU SEE, THE REPORTS, FOR EXAMPLE, IN DISTINGUISHED BUSINESS PUBLICATIONS LIKE THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. THEY TALK ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS PLANS, THEY CALL THEM "PAY TO PLAY," WHERE IF, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU WERE GOING TO GO TO A VARIETY OF WEB SITES, UNDER SOME OF THE APPROACHES, APPARENTLY YOU'D HAVE TO PAY EVERY TIME YOU WENT TO ONE OF THESE WEB SITES IF YOU WANTED TO GET GOOD-QUALITY SERVICE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S DISCRIMINATION. I THINK IT'S DISCRIMINATING AGAINST CONSUMERS. I THINK IT'S DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SMALL BUSINESSES, AND I THINK IT WILL DO EXTRAORDINARY DAMAGE TO THE INHERENT BEAUTY OF THE INTERNET, WHICH IS THAT IT'S BEEN ALL ABOUT A FAIR SHAKE FOR EVERY AMERICAN, FOR EVERY CONSUMER.

IN AN EFFORT TO SPIN THIS DISCRIMINATION BY THE BIG CABLE COMPANIES AND THE BIG PHONE COMPANIES AGAINST THE CONSUMER, THE BIG LOBBIES ARE ENGAGED IN A HUGE ADVERTISING BLITZ. BY MY BACK OF THE ENVELOPE CALCULATION, THESE BIG LOBBIES ARE SPENDING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON ADVERTISEMENTS TO CONVINCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT DISCRIMINATION AND THESE EXTRA CHARGES THAT THEY WOULD FACE ON THE INTERNET ARE ACTUALLY GOOD FOR THEM. IF IT'S SO GOOD FOR THE CONSUMER, WHY ARE THESE LOBBIES SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON THESE ADVERTISEMENTS TO TELL THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ABOUT? IF DISCRIMINATION WAS SO GOOD, WOULDN'T CONSUMERS HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN PAYING HIGHER PRICES A LONG TIME AGO?

IT'S HARD TO OPEN THE PAGES OF A NEWSPAPER OR TURN ON THE TELEVISION WITHOUT SEEING AN ADVERTISEMENT URGING PEOPLE TO STOP CONGRESS FROM -- QUOTE -- "REGULATING THE INTERNET." ONE TRADE ASSOCIATION HAS EVEN PLACED ADS AT AIRPORTS AROUND WASHINGTON, D.C., HOPING SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES TRAVELLING BACK TO THEIR STATES WILL SEE THESE ADS. THE EXECUTIVES AT THESE LARGE CORPORATIONS WOULD NOT BE COMMITTING SUCH LARGE SUMS TO ADVERTISING IF THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT THESE KINDS OF ADVERTISEMENTS WOULD PAY OFF HANDSOMELY IN PROFITS. GROUPS LIKE HANDS OFF THE INTERNET, A FRONT GROUP FOR SOME OF THE BIG COMMUNICATIONS LOBBIES, HAVE OFFERED SOME EYE-POPPING ADS. YOU LOOK AT THIS RECENT AD, FOR EXAMPLE, IN WHICH THEY DISPLAY A COPY OF MY LEGISLATION, THE INTERNET NONDISCRIMINATION ACT. THE ONLY THING ACCURATE ABOUT THIS AD IS THE TOP PAGE OF MY BILL. IT'S GOT MY NAME ON IT. IT CLEARLY SAYS, "THE INTERNET NONDISCRIMINATION ACT," BUT JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS DEAD WRONG. WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS FALSELY ADD UP WHAT LOOKS LIKE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF PAGES TO MY BILL. THIS IS HOW THEY DEMONSTRATE WHAT MY LEGISLATION IS ALL ABOUT.

HERE IS THE REALITY, MR. PRESIDENT. HERE IS WHAT THEY SAY I'VE PROPOSED. HERE'S WHAT THE BIG COMMUNICATIONS LOBBIES OUGHT TO DESCRIBE AS THE REAL WORLD, A PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT IS 15 PAGES LONG. THE BILL THAT I HAVE INTRODUCED IS 15 PAGES. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE ANYTHING ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT THE BIG COMMUNICATIONS LOBBIES ARE SPENDING SUCH VAST SUMS ON. THERE'S AN EVEN MORE DISTURBING MISREPRESENTATION IN THIS AD. IT SAYS, STAMPED UP AT THE TOP, "REGULATION." MY LEGISLATION ISN'T ABOUT REGULATION. ALL I WANT TO DO IS LEAVE THE INTERNET ALONE. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE SUBJECT TO DISCRIMINATORY CHANGES, CHANGES THAT WOULD HIT THE AMERICAN CONSUMER IN THE POCKET. I THINK ANY FAIR-MINDED AMERICAN WHO LOOKS AT MY RECORD WILL SEE THAT I'VE NEVER SOUGHT TO REGULATE THE INTERNET. ON THE CONTRARY, WHEN I CAME TO THE UNITED STATES SENATE, I WAS A LEADER IN THE EFFORT TO KEEP THE INTERNET FREE OF DISCRIMINATORY TAXES. I FOUGHT TO KEEP THE INTERNET FREE OF REGULATION. NOW I'M TRYING TO KEEP CONTROL OF THE INTERNET IN THE HANDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND NOT FORCE AMERICANS IN THIS COUNTRY TO PAY TOMORROW FOR WHAT IS FREE TODAY.

IF YOU LOOKED AT THESE ADVERTISEMENTS, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU WOULD THINK THAT NEUTRALITY IS SOME NEW-FANGLED IDEA THAT THREATENS THE INTERNET. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, AND THE INTERNET HAS THRIVED PRECISELY BECAUSE IT'S NEUTRAL. IT'S THRIVED BECAUSE CONSUMERS AND NOT SOME HUGE PHONE COMPANY OR SOME HUGE CABLE COMPANY GET TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO SEE AND HOW QUICKLY THEY GET TO SEE IT. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THOSE OF US THAT ARE FIGHTING TO KEEP THE NET NEUTRAL, WHICH MEANS THAT WHEN YOU GO TO YOUR BROWSER, YOU GO WHERE YOU WANT, WHEN YOU WANT AFTER YOU PAY THAT INITIAL ACCESS CHARGE. WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN REGULATING ANYTHING. THE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO MAKE THE CHANGES, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO WANT TO MEDDLE. THEY WANT TO PUT THEIR HANDS ON THE INTERNET TO HEAP ALL THESE EXTRA CHARGES ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

NOW WE HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS IN OREGON, ONE WITH A WEB SITE WHERE SHE SELLS HER PRODUCTS TO PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD. IF THESE BIG LOBBIES HAVE THEIR WAY, SHE'LL HAVE TO PAY A NEW HEFTY FEE SO CUSTOMERS CAN CONTINUE TO HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO HER WEB SITE. THAT'S NOT RIGHT. THE CONSUMER, AFTER THEY PAY THAT INITIAL ACCESS CHARGE, OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO GO WHERE THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT, AND TO MAKE THEM PAY TOMORROW FOR WHAT THEY GET FOR FREE TODAY AFTER THEY PAY THAT INITIAL ACCESS CHARGE IS WRONG. AS THIS DEBATE GOES FORWARD, AND I THINK COLLEAGUES ARE WAITING TO SPEAK, I HAD ANTICIPATED SPENDING A BIT MORE TIME ON IT, BUT I THINK THIS AD SAYS IT ALL, MR. PRESIDENT. WE OUGHT TO KEEP THE INTERNET FREE OF DISCRIMINATION. WE OUGHT TO PROTECT CONSUMERS AGAINST MULTIPLE AND DISCRIMINATORY EXCESS CHARGES, AND THE NEXT TIME SOMEBODY SEES ONE OF THESE ADS, ADS THAT SEEM TO HAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF LOBBY MONEY BACKING THEM UP, THEY OUGHT TO KNOW THAT THIS, WHICH PURPORTS TO REPRESENT MY LEGISLATION, IS FALSE. WHAT'S IN THIS AD SUGGESTS SCORES AND SCORES OF PAGES. THE REALITY IS MY BILL TO KEEP THE INTERNET FREE OF DISCRIMINATION, TO PROTECT THE CONSUMER, IS 15 PAGES LONG, AND THE ARGUMENT AT THE TOP OF THE AD THAT THERE WILL BE A HOST OF NET NEUTRALITY REGULATIONS IS SIMILARLY FALSE. IT'S NOT ABOUT REGULATING ANYTHING. I WANT TO KEEP THE INTERNET THE WAY IT IS. IT IS AN OPEN, VIBRANT SYSTEM ACCESSIBLE TO ALL. WITH THAT, MR. PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR.

Bookmark the Agonist Net Neutrality Section (combines news, diary, and forum posts)

The Agonist is a charter member of the Save The Internet Coalition