Net neutrality bill to pass in the 110th Congress?
By on Nov 28th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
Net neutrality bill to pass in the 110th Congress?
Telecom expert Art Brodsky warns it’s no slam dunk.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Keep the net neutral, and Tahoe blue.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:39 pmFor the 110th effing time, if you must, burn the flag.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:45 pmTed Kennedy has a video on YouTube discussing the net neutrality bill.
So whereas W has only recently discovered “the email”, T. Kennedy has embraced the series of tubes that we call “the internets”.
Who needs the MSM when you got the YouTube(s)? Way to go Ted for showing us that an old dog CAN learn new tricks!
November 28th, 2006 at 6:06 pmAnyone trying to restrict net access is peeing upwind. I can pass through a number of web sites and ultimately find what I need or want to know regardless of governmental or privacy restrictions. Even those sites that offer personal info for a fee can be compromised (for free). Default passwords and user IDs are a bust.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pmIts been a few since I initally read about “Net Neutrality” so I forget if its a good or bad thing like some of Bush’s Orwellian named initiatives. I read the blog that is linked and it doesn’t offer up much in this regard. Is Net Neutrality really about keeping it equal or is it in favor of providing favors to the bigger companies who are willing to pay a little more?
Thanks
And, Walt… perhaps a random seeming question, but did you used to post on the NYTimes forum?
November 28th, 2006 at 6:20 pmjune, in short – you WANT NET NEUTRALITY.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:28 pmNET NEUTRALITY is GOOD.
Net Neutrality basically keeps the net the way it is now.
If telecom giants get their way, sites that get heavily trafficked (google, amazon, etc.) or use alot of bandwidth (YouTube, media streaming) would pay a higher fee based on their level of traffic.
Additionally, internet users would pay a premium depending on the speed of the access they want (tiered pricing).
That’s what I understand the issue to be, please correct me if I’m wrong.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:46 pm#5 – June,
November 28th, 2006 at 6:57 pmNo, I did send a few letters to the editor on the Times site and by snail mail. None were actually published. I’ve read the Times for about 47 years (Every issue.) and solved the puzzle every day over that period.
ALL democrats, by now, should know just how important a free and neutral internet is.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:58 pmren – you are mistaken…
November 28th, 2006 at 7:08 pm8 search results for ‘net neutrality’ – on ThinkProgress:
http://thinkprogress.org/?s=net+neutrality
November 28th, 2006 at 7:11 pmgood explanation here, from that list:
…
For now, let’s talk about net neutrality and how the campaign against it is being somewhat astroturfed by the telecom industry. I’ve explained before what net neutrality means. It’s a standard which says that no telecom company can discriminate against content that flows over its pipes. Allowing telecom outfits to treat content differently will basically turn the internet into another cable TV system, with telecom companies deciding who can effectively publish a web site and who can’t.
…
http://mydd.com/story/2006/4/20/161813/254
follow the links… here’s one:
Net Neutrality: The First Amendment for the Internet
by Matt Stoller, Wed Apr 19, 2006 at 02:12:11 PM EST
Cory Doctorow posted on net neutrality yesterday. Net neutrality is the provision that says all speech on the internet must be treated equally, and no data packets get favored just because the data is traveling over different pipes. It’s the first amendment transferred to the internet.
The telcos want to end net neutrality. They want to turn the internet into another TV where those who pay a lot have the ability to broadcast, and those that don’t get inferior degraded service. It’s dressed up in a lot of spin with Clinton hacks like Mike McCurry working for the telcos, but that’s the basic dynamic.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:18 pm…
http://mydd.com/story/2006/4/19/141211/031
.
re#8
One minor correction to your post about net neutrality, is the lie that the telecos and cable companies tell, is that the larger bandwidth users need to pay more, because they do not .
I host a website and the amount I pay each month already varies according to how much bandwidth I want to pay for!
I pay $100 for the lowest tier, but have the option of paying more for more bandwith, where bandwith is how many bytes you are allowed to receive and send per second.
Net neutrality does not have anything to due with equal bandwith, it is about maintaining the current status quo of all “bytes” being treated equal while in transit on the network.
Right now a “byte” sent from my little webserver, as long as the number of bytes I am sending is below my maximum per second, is routed at the same speed as a “byte” sent from Google’s large webservers, as long as the number of bytes they are sending is below their maximum per second.
What the teleco and cable REALLY want is to treat the “bytes” of their content to have a higher priorty when it comes to being delivered while in transit on the network versus the “byes” of content they do not own!
They want a “byte” from their content webservers and their high paying customer’s webservers, to make my “byte” wait, even though my byte entered the network first.
Obviously this is unfair, so they cannot come right out and say that they want this, so they use the smoke screen about large users “hogging” bandwidth, to hide the “apartied” network that they want, because most people do not understand that large users already pay more for the larger bandwith they use!
November 28th, 2006 at 7:21 pmI have thought it was a matter of free speech being harnesed or distroyed.? True or not true.? Also would the average poster or blogger be affected>? I have not spent much time on this issue, still fighting the Iraq war and other problem’s…Would appreciate some of the savy posters input…..Thank’s…Blessings
November 28th, 2006 at 7:39 pmWithout net neutrality, larger companies who can afford to pay the higher “traffic” fees would get preferential treatment over “mom and pop” internet sites, squashing small internet commerce sites. Goodbye competition.
Here’s another good link. It’s a 23 page document. At least read page 7 and 8, it’s a good summary of the problem.
http://www.freepress.net/docs/nn_fact_v_fiction_final.pdf
November 28th, 2006 at 7:51 pmWould the internet become biased in some form, if the telcoms get what they want?
November 28th, 2006 at 8:08 pmcriticalthinker is correct. this isn’t about the amount of bandwidth used. It has to do with you having to sit at the back of the bus for small sites like Think Progress (sorry TP), while larger sites like MSN.com get to sit at the front of the bus with champagne. Of course sites like FoxNews.com, RedState.org, etc. will all be classified as “big important site”
November 28th, 2006 at 9:09 pmRen is right about the net neutality bill. It is doublespeak. It would destroy net neutrality. Net neutrality itself is good.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:29 pmi think spudge has answered fortruth’s question…
November 28th, 2006 at 9:30 pmsounds like a ‘yes’… more information manipulation…
imagine that…
Redstate? You are kidding? They have few comments, no real debate and they toss people off for being off topic!
November 28th, 2006 at 11:34 pmThanks for the help on my question folks.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:45 pmNet neutrality is the first amendment of the internet. Without it, websites load according to how much they pay. Google, yahoo, ebay will load quickly, the stuff you want to see including blogs will load very slowly or not load. The telecommunications companies hire trolls to comment against net neutrality on blogs. Ignore them and call your congressperson in support of net neutrality.
savetheinternet.com
November 29th, 2006 at 2:43 amvideo