Read HR 3458 "The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009" here
Markey's campaign contributions on OpenSecrets here and here.
From Campaign For Liberty: Net Neutrality Regulation vs. Internet Freedom
From Tech Liberation: It’s no coincidence that the Internet, a sanctuary of governmental restraint, has spawned such unparalleled innovation. In the relentlessly fast-moving digital age, regulatory intervention is a recipe for entrenching the status-quo.
From Digital Society: The US leads the world in innovation on the Internet and all of its related technologies and continues to do so under the current regulatory regime. Yet in the absence of market failure or any materialization of dire predictions from Net Neutrality regulation advocates 3 years ago, why is now a good time to pass radical new changes to the regulatory landscape to enforce an experimental version of the Internet that has never been tried? Why destroy existing business models that have flourished on the Internet today in favor of hypothetical businesses that may never materialize?
NOW supports HR 3458:
http://www.boingboing.net/2009/09/25/national-organizatio-1.html
New! Subscribe to ByteStyle.tv via Feedburner:
* * * * *
Any time the government gets
Any time the government gets involved it only makes things worse. The school system, health care, pretty much anything.
Let the people vote with there dollars.
Sorry Shelley, but you are
Sorry Shelley, but you are way off on this one. In fact I'd say you pretty much lost me as a supporter on this one.
Why do you think it's such a good thing that the network providers (let's use Time Warner as an example) can screw over the consumer and entrepreneurs any time they want?
Why do you think it's a good thing that if Time Warner doesn't like the content of Shelley's latest video, that they can deny users access to it?
Why do you think that if an entrepreneur starts a new business that competes with services that Time Warner provides, that Time Warner can block their packets?
Why do you think that Time Warner should be able to charge internet users tiered fees for different services (you want YouTube? That'll be an extra $10/month.) the way they do for cable TV?
WIth this smug video you have revealed yourself to be a clueless ideologue.
I'll admit I'm an idealist.
I'll admit I'm an idealist. But just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm clueless - it just means we don't agree.
I also never said it was a good thing for Time Warner to "screw over" anyone. Under our current *unregulated* system, do you have any evidence TW is traffic shaping or egregiously denying access and getting away with it? On what basis are you claiming that the problem is so dire that it can only be corrected with regulation? I just don't see it.
I have 5 ISPs in my rural area. If one of them starts to use practices that affect my usage, I'll switch. Why complicate the issue by getting the gov't involved?
So you are for outlawing
So you are for outlawing teired service? So everyone should have to have every single premium cable channel whether they like it or not? Hotel rooms should all be one high price whether you want the penthouse or the economy room?
I guess I se how you like the idea of forcing others topay for the services you want. Can you give some examples of your ISP descrimitating agaist you and please explain what has stopped you from switching ISP's? Are you very happy with the way the FCC runs television and radio?
hey Mario, i'm not really
hey Mario, i'm not really commenting on your comment but was just wondering if you've seen Michael Moore's new movie " Capitalism: A love affair" and if so what you thought of it .. tahnks, eric
Haven't seen it. Why do you
Haven't seen it. Why do you ask?
i saw it and found it to be a
i saw it and found it to be a good flick- capitalism, as the priests say, doesnt take care of people ... it's greedy and corrupt .. and im not saying socialism is good either but
htere has got to be a better way than what both lead too , which is 1984 ....
What we have today isn't
What we have today isn't capitalism. Capitalism properly understood is where the government stays out of everything, leaving our choices to rule the day.
Instead, what we have is closer TO socialism: Transfers of wealth from poor to rich, AND from rich to poor. Rules placed on business to help or hurt whole industries depending on how politically connected they are.
Political control.
Michael Moore is dishonest in that he pretends that the banana republic we live in today represents capitalism.
What we should be asking is which system lets us live, including to start and run businesses, without being messed with. We can call what we want "Freedom". We can also point out that such freedom offers competition where regulation fails. We can also point out that such freedom - or something a lot closer to it - created the now-dying middle class of America.
America WAS a very easy place to get ahead before we embraced big government.
The only reason Time Warner can threaten anything is because cities have laws preventing other cable companies from competing with them.
Did you get that?
Laws preventing even a 2nd cable choice.
The law prevents competition. That's what regulation does.
We don't have freedom, and Moore can't seem to care about that. He's stumping for the benevolent politicians to help us more - where history shows they'll help themselves at our expense.
Actually, what you describe
Actually, what you describe here is not capitalism, it is free enterprise, where everyone works for themselves, and not for some bloated pyramid scheme (aka Corporation) that makes only the very few at the top (CEOs etc) rich, and enslave the rest. That's capitalism. Cut from the same cloth as communism and socialism. Both of which reward only the few at the top of the pyramid, and enslave everyone below. Capitalism, socialism and communism all do this, and anyone who supports any of those systems, either has no understanding of their structures, or does, and is out to control the masses economically.
BTW, economic control is greater than military control. You can't raise and supply a military, without capital.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmm...........
true - Moore does a very
true - Moore does a very crappy job of explaining that government has stuck it's nasty finger into corporations way too much ( ie 60% of GM takeover ) - so he should say that when govt takes control of a corporation it's FASCISM .. but he fails there - I don't recall the SOCIALISM word from Mr. Moore either -- just that he did a good job of showing the plant his father worked at is now a pile of steel, that it brought a great way of life for him as a kid but that is gone now and the many similar stories of people for whom it is gone now and the way they are suffering .. also he does show the Govt enforcement of people getting kicked out of their houses .. he tries to go after the big banksters at AIG and CitiBank? ( or was it Chase?) .. of course to no avail -- i funny flick with serious overtones, but he should have had some RON PAUL in there to balance it out !
America was an easy place to
America was an easy place to get ahead before we embraced big government? What do mean we we used to think slavery was okay? America has only every been easy for some, namely white males.
Great points on the need for
Great points on the need for network neutrality anon, you are really knowledgeable on this topic. After the technological advances towards IP convergence the subsidies ILECTs have every reason to try to fragment data services to try to corner markets again. It is to the telcoms benefit to erect as many toll roads on the information highway as possible to cash in on their market status, much of which was gained through government subsidies and other preferential treatment. I take yesterdays news of AT&T's concession to allow VOIP over their wireless network as a testimony to the power of at least the threat of regulation. Please also consider that the data flowing through the telcos system is the private property of the sender and receiver, not the telcoms. It is a fallacy to believe that switching between limited local providers would have any sort of direct impact on telcoms who violate network neutrality principals. The proposed types of filtering would occur on the major Internet trunks far away from any control one could assert. I personally believe that regulations that are intended to stimulate competition and increase transparency and consumer awareness are beneficial to society. I sometimes feel dejected that those in the Liberty movement seem to be too focused on economic issues rather than emphasizing individual Liberty. Corporations and people are distinct and should rightfully be treated differently. The Gilded Age was a time in America where the government exerted virtually no regulatory control and it was not the utopia for the average American that is promised by today's Libertarians.
"The Gilded Age was a time in
"The Gilded Age was a time in America where the government exerted virtually no regulatory control and it was not the utopia for the average American that is promised by today's Libertarians."
Libertarians don't believe in utopia...if we as libertarians ourselves don't make that clear and understand why and where we're coming from, there's no way we'll get that point across to non-libertarians who believe such a thing. The "Gilded Age" actually saw a significant expansion of the US economy and growth of cities. But problems (outside of normal free-market issues) came not from lack of govt involvement, but from what involvement it did occasionally have. Massive state corruption, involvement of Big Businesses with govt, including payoffs to secure govt contracts, govt fraud (and corruption involving govt and business) in cities with powerful political parties, etc. When govt gets involved in things bigger problems abound than what the free-market creates and later corrects. The free-market isn't utopia, but it is superior. As I told the anon poster, we need to focus on pushing for a freer, open marketplace instead of playing the Big Govt game of more lawmaking and regulations and hoping it turns out alright and govt doesn't grow to take advantage of doors we allowed to be opened.
http://www.campaignforliberty
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=247
i think what your doing is a
i think what your doing is a good thing....keep it up...there are many among us who feel that the federal government (as well as the population at large) needs to be reminded of the nineth amendment....the right to be left alone.
So... Time Warner gives
So... Time Warner gives Markey money, Markey tries to pass Network Neutrality legislation that gives the FCC the right to dictate to Time Warner how they'll manage their network? Does this sound logical to you? Why would Time Warner want such legislation when AT&T and Comcast are so clearly against it?
No offense but you need to educate yourself on this issue. If you want the Internet to turn into what FM radio and cable/broadcast television have become in the US then you should keep fighting Network Neutrality legislation.
Allow me to educate you...
The network neutrality rules were put into place because the carriers have been threatening to change the Internet as we know it. Ed Whitacre, former AT&T CEO, now of General Motors, let the cat out of the bag a couple of years ago and stated that if AT&T was going to lay fiber companies like Skype, Google, etc. had to pay to run traffic on their lines. Imagine AT&T keeping track of how many times people made a VOIP call and then billing Skype, Vonage, etc. for the privilege.
They were also looking to sell faster speeds to IP service providers that could afford it. Imagine a scenario where a rich company like Apple paid AT&T millions so its iTunes video streaming service ran faster than competing services (Netflix) over the AT&T network. This would change the landscape of the Internet drastically as the web would turn into what television and radio are today... dominated by large corporations. Look what happened to radio when the Republican sponsored 1998 Telecommunications Act was passed that removed the restriction of how many radio stations a company could purchase. ClearChannel and Infinity Broadcasting took over the industry and now we have dog sh!t on the radio.
Also, these new rules will prevent carriers from blocking or degrading IP services on purpose. A few years ago an ISP on the east coast intentionally blocked a VOIP provider that was offering a cheaper plan. Does this sound fair?
A lot of critics say the FCC is changing the rules. The truth is, they are simply looking to keep the Internet a level playing field as it is today. If you pay for bandwidth to get on-line you can go anywhere and do anything, regardless of whether you're an end user or offering an IP service.
Unfortunately, I believe this regulation is mandated given what the carriers would like to implement because there is not true competition. If people had a choice between several broadband providers this wouldn't be an issue. But most people have just one or two choices. Of course it used to be that you could get your DSL service from a wide selection of ISPs that leased the local telco line at a wholesale rate but the carriers refused to roll out fiber unless the rule forcing them to share their lines was changed. Remember those days? The FCC gave in and now you can get DSL from just one company, your local provider.
Despite the carriers crying foul over more "regulation" the fact is that they love regulation when it suits their purpose. As rolling out new infrastructure is a significant capital expense many small towns have been left without robust broadband as carriers refused to invest. But when these municipalities tried to roll their own fiber the carriers lobbied state governments to put a stop to it citing unfair competition.
The next tactic the carriers plan to implement is centered around consumption based billing. While this sounds reasonable it would allow them to implement traffic discrimination as they could determine which bits tally against your bill and which don't. They could enter into a financial arrangement with YouTube, for example, so their bits don't run up the meter while all other video services do. It will also allow them to not charge for their own competing services. Would you download a movie from iTunes if it cost you $5.00 plus a $3.00 ISP bandwidth fee or download it for $7.00 from a crappier service offered by your ISP without the bandwidth fee?
If you want some insight into this issue check out this Bill Moyers piece:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/net/index.html
I know, I know... Bill Moyers is liberal. Get over it. He's right on this issue.
I don't like regulation... I think a free market would prevail in this case but we don't have a free market.
There are many nuances to this issue (I could go on)... personally I'm not certain such rules should be passed until abuse becomes a real problem. But this NN legislation is certainly not a bad thing.
And spending time rallying the Ron Paul crowd (of which I am a member) around this issue is the last thing you should be doing. There are far more important issues at hand.
Interesting. > If you want
Interesting.
> If you want the Internet to turn into what FM radio and cable/broadcast television have become in the US then you should keep fighting Network Neutrality legislation.
The FCC regulates FM radio and cable/broadcast TV. They don't regulate the internet. If I wanted the Internet to turn into FM Radio/TV, I'd be FOR this bill.
I understand where you're coming from on some of this, but I operated a small wireless ISP (900mHz Alvarion) a few years back and was Director of IT for Comcast HQ prior to that, so I'm not as uneducated on the issue as you seem to think... though I AM indeed blonde, so I see how you could make that mistake - happens all the time ;)
You're exactly right when you say big companies WANT regulation in certain cases. My ISP was small & we couldn't afford the high-end monitoring systems that the big guys have (and we really didn't need them). If we were suddenly subjected to the FCC's licensing and auditing whims, we'd have had to make a huge investment in infrastructure for the sole purpose of being able to respond to their demands. And instead of spending our time installing new customers and operating our business, we'd be trying to figure out what the requirements were and how to meet them, running reports and filing paperwork to prove our networks were neutral. Further, it looks like we wouldn't be allowed to offer tiered service levels, so either our rural residential customers would have to pay more for additional bandwidth they didn't need, or our business customers would have to make do with less bandwidth - not a great business model. Also, we had a 42% market penetration, and our competitors (the big guys) were constantly forced to run sales to compete with us. So, yeah, there's an incentive for Time Warner to push this.
Is it a stretch to think they'd care about competition from a bunch of small independent providers? Maybe. But the only logical reason for Time Warner to be Markey's top contributor is so they can influence the legislation in their favor. Period.
And beyond that, the bigger point here is that there is absolutely no justification for this legislation. And sure, there are certainly more critical issues on the table right now, but I think it's good to be informed about some of the completely illogical/shady dealings going on in the background. No?
The FCC regulates FM radio
The FCC regulates FM radio and cable/broadcast TV. They don't regulate the internet. If I wanted the Internet to turn into FM Radio/TV, I'd be FOR this bill.
>>Right. You'd rather the oligopoly the telcos and cable companies have regulate the Internet. And don't tell me the free market will take care of it because we don't have a free market.
I understand where you're coming from on some of this, but I operated a small wireless ISP (900mHz Alvarion) a few years back and was Director of IT for Comcast HQ prior to that, so I'm not as uneducated on the issue as you seem to think... though I AM indeed blonde, so I see how you could make that mistake - happens all the time ;)
>>I didn't mean to offend your geek street cred. ;) I'm sorry for my tone... but it is frustrating to see libertarians jump to the conclusion that this regulation is somehow antithetical to the free market.
If we were suddenly subjected to the FCC's licensing and auditing whims, we'd have had to make a huge investment in infrastructure for the sole purpose of being able to respond to their demands. And instead of spending our time installing new customers and operating our business, we'd be trying to figure out what the requirements were and how to meet them, running reports and filing paperwork to prove our networks were neutral.
>>Certainly adhering to government regulation is a drag on any industry. And I do not know, nor has it likely been determined, as to whether or not an ISP must prove the neutrality of their network on some periodic basis with this new regulation. Thus far it seems FCC investigation into these matters has been largely reactionary, brought about by scientific analysis of the Internet community (http://www.nnsquad.org among others). Basically, if the ISPs sneeze the wrong way anyone who follows this topic will know about it.
Further, it looks like we wouldn't be allowed to offer tiered service levels, so either our rural residential customers would have to pay more for additional bandwidth they didn't need, or our business customers would have to make do with less bandwidth - not a great business model.
>>The FCC is not mandating that an ISP offer all their customers the same pipe for the same price. Certainly there is nothing wrong with Time Warner offering different levels of tiered IP neutral bandwidth.
>>The tiered services issue is about IP tiered services. If AT&T offers the market the opportunity to stream 720p HD movies to any AT&T Internet subscriber at high speeds for $10 million dollars a year what happens to competing services that can't afford to pay AT&T that sort of tax?
>>If Apple can afford to pay AT&T for the privilege of having their DSCP marked video packets prioritized through AT&Ts DSCP aware network and Netflix can't then on whose service are you likely to watch HD movies? As an AT&T subscriber will you watch the crystal clear 720p movies from iTunes or the crappy pixelated ones from Netflix? Welcome to cable and radio hell. Only media companies with the deepest pockets will get their product out.
>>This sort of architecture change is a radical departure from the Best Effort tradition of the Internet where all packets are treated equally. ISPs love to complain that Google, etc. aren't paying their fair share and are running traffic over their pipes "for free" while they conveniently forget that Google already pays millions of dollars to get connected to the Internet and that it's the ISP USERS who are generating all the bandwidth by accessing Google over pipes for which they've already paid!
>>What it comes down to is this. ISPs are run by old telecommunication companies. Telecommunication companies used to make billions of dollars through services (i.e., long distance calls, call waiting, 3-way calling, etc.) on their antiquated circuit switched networks where they could literally control everything.
>>Those days are over. But running an IP network in a non-neutral way where they can charge IP service providers (Google, Apple, Netflix, etc.) a toll to have their traffic prioritized puts them right back into the oh-so-profitable circuit switched business model where every IP connection between a host and a server is considered a pipe... a pipe from which revenue could be extracted if the provider of the IP service were willing to pay to have their traffic delivered faster than that of competitors.
Also, we had a 42% market penetration, and our competitors (the big guys) were constantly forced to run sales to compete with us. So, yeah, there's an incentive for Time Warner to push this.
>>I'm sure that was the case but I don't see the Network Neutrality push you claim Time Warner is making changing anything. Are you suggesting Network Neutrality would bury small ISPs under a mound of regulation? I'd like to hear specific points on this. And I'm sure competition from ISPs are the last thing Time Warner is worrying about.
the only logical reason for Time Warner to be Markey's top contributor is so they can influence the legislation in their favor. Period.
>>The only reason for any company to contribute anything to any political candidate is to influence legislation. You should investigate the money going to Republican candidates on the opposite side of this issue. What companies are behind that money I wonder?
And beyond that, the bigger point here is that there is absolutely no justification for this legislation.
>>Comcast purposefully breaking Bittorrent, ISPs blocking VOIP, threats made by AT&T's former CEO aren't worrisome? I agree legislation might not be required just yet. I prefer no regulation over regulation any day but anyone who suggests that Network Neutrality is an affront to the free market doesn't understand the broken market we have now. It's ripe for abuse because the NSA-friendly RBOCs have been consolidating for years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RBOC_map.png) and the only choice most Americans have is obtaining Internet service from the local telco or cable company. Wireless is a third option for some, as you've pointed out, but unfortunately the forthcoming true highspeed wireless technologies (WiMax, LTE) won't help competition either because the same RBOCs and Cable companies that offer terrestrial service won the auctions for the spectrum required to run these new wireless services. Hooray marketplace!!
And sure, there are certainly more critical issues on the table right now, but I think it's good to be informed about some of the completely illogical/shady dealings going on in the background. No?
>>Indeed. Which is why I'm trying to help.
:)
>>>Indeed. Which is why I'm
>>>Indeed. Which is why I'm trying to help.
I appreciate the discussion, and the civility - you obviously know your stuff. I guess it comes down to temperament. Personally, I don't trust Congress + their corporate sponsors to enact legislation that isn't slanted in favor of the corporate sponsors. Our current system is one in which big corporations own politicians, and work with them to craft (or oppose) legislation.
>>>Comcast purposefully breaking Bittorrent, ISPs blocking VOIP, threats made by AT&T's former CEO aren't worrisome?
Sure, but what happened when Comcast did that? Huge public uproar, plus a multitude of articles on how to circumvent it. And... Comcast is a private company. Shouldn't they be able to make those sorts of decisions about how they run their network as long as they're ok with the consequences?
More worrisome to me is the potential for what can happen once we let the camel's nose into the tent. It opens the door for all sorts of abuse in the future. I completely agree that we don't have a free market. IMO, this sort of seemingly-innocuous legislation is the reason why. And for me, the solution is NOT to add more regulation, but to start to address it two ways:
1. Replace the corrupt politicians who perpetuate the cycle - yes, *both* parties.
2. Get consumers more involved in "voting with their wallets" - if they don't like the way AT&T runs their business, stop giving them money for frak's sake! I'd like to think if even a small percentage of people were willing to do this, it would create all sorts of opportunities for entrepreneurship within the space. The only thing more powerful than the corporate lobby is We the People...
I just bought an RV (long story), so I can't write much - have to go clean...
Agreed, and thank you so much
Agreed, and thank you so much Shelly for bringing this to my attention!
I knew there was another reason why I subscribed to your channel, yuk, yuk.
I guess it comes down to
I guess it comes down to temperament. Personally, I don't trust Congress + their corporate sponsors to enact legislation that isn't slanted in favor of the corporate sponsors.
>>I agree completely. But I also don't trust the ISPs to not abuse their government sanctioned position of power.
Sure, but what happened when Comcast did that? Huge public uproar, plus a multitude of articles on how to circumvent it.
>>Wasn't it great? I think the NN legislation is part of the same uproar.
Comcast is a private company. Shouldn't they be able to make those sorts of decisions about how they run their network as long as they're ok with the consequences?
>>Of course. But you're forgetting Comcast is a government sanctioned monopoly. As are the telcos. They are allowed by the government to tear up our streets, run cable along other utility lines and have special rights not granted to a normal business. Shouldn't "we the people", through legislation, be allowed to apply special rules over such a business arrangement?
More worrisome to me is the potential for what can happen once we let the camel's nose into the tent. It opens the door for all sorts of abuse in the future.
>>I am concerned as well.
1. Replace the corrupt politicians who perpetuate the cycle - yes, *both* parties.
>>Good. Nothing irritates me more than all the people who came out of the woodwork to protest Obama yet kept their mouth shut when Bush was in office. I'm still waiting for the GOP to apologize.
2. Get consumers more involved in "voting with their wallets" - if they don't like the way AT&T runs their business, stop giving them money for frak's sake!
>>Sounds great... but what is their other choice... the local cable operator? Apparently you have several ISPs from which to choose in your area. You and your cats are very lucky!
I just bought an RV (long story), so I can't write much - have to go clean...
>>Why not turn it into a giant WiFi hotspot and roam the countryside providing bandwidth to the poor huddled masses?
"You'd rather the oligopoly
"You'd rather the oligopoly the telcos and cable companies have regulate the Internet. And don't tell me the free market will take care of it because we don't have a free market."
Well, perhaps we should focus more on creating a free-market that will make monopolization difficult and make consumers part of a self-regulating market instead of making more laws on top of laws which restrict the market place and help prop up the very things we oppose. Considering the incredible regulatory power of the FCC, why should any libertarian seriously think that opening the door of the internet to them would simply stop at this one particular regulation? Of course it wouldn't! Govt likes to grow, not remain steady...history pretty much guarantees it. The only way you can "fix" the market is repealing regulations across the board and open up the heavily regulated market, exposing the current players to true market forces, otherwise we're just playing the same construction game the Big Govt types are...making some laws and moving around some chairs and hoping there aren't any unintended consequences.
I'm open to suggestions. Like
I'm open to suggestions. Like I said, I don't like regulation. But I also believe the openness must be protected and you can be sure what the carriers have in store won't benefit the consumer.
I'm sure we both know the quasi-free market the GOP is so fond of these days is ruinous to innovation. And I don't see any dismantling of the FCC anytime soon, nor the monopoly rights granted to operators by municipalities and state governments under the current political environment. It's a very difficult situation!
The following video is very informative about the FCC and its role in spectrum allocation (not exactly applicable to the Network Neutrality issue). The emphasis presented is one of deregulation and is worth a look.
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2007/02/internet_policy_deregulating_s.html
The proposed outline for the
The proposed outline for the legislation seems to be focused on keeping telco providers such as Comcast from acting as gatekeepers. The current model for connectivity is that one buys a service at a certain bandwidth, and is able to use that bandwidth without interference from the provider. Comcast has already demonstrated a that it can and will act to control traffic based on its own arbitrary needs. While I'd agree the problem does not require the creation of a new government regulatory entity at this point, I am unclear of the basis for the following statement:
"why is now a good time to pass radical new changes to the regulatory landscape to enforce an experimental version of the Internet that has never been tried"
Since internet bandwidth is currently for the most part not controlled at the packet level by providers (slow them to google, speed them to bing, for example), how is legislation preventing that "experimental"?
Thanks.
Post new comment