Washblog

She is technical enough to figure out why this is bad, and act accordingly. A correct stance, and a timely one.
---Don't tell Ivan I said this :)

by Israelhand on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 11:45:17 AM PST

---

and signed Cantwell's petition.

Another thing we would not see from McGavick.  Cantwell would leave the Internet free -- even when that means more public forum for criticizing her.

The Republican culture, on the other hand, features the suppression of free speech at every turn.  

by noemie maxwell on Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 03:22:04 PM PST

---

I have exactly zero concerns with tiered service. Sure, it'd suck for a few months. But I deep faith in a geek truisms such as this one:

"The Internet interprets the US Congress as system damage and routes around it."

-- Jeanne DeVoto (?)

For a more technical analysis why tiered service would crater the proponents, try Robert X. Cringely's recent articles:

Net Neutered: Why don't they tell us ending Net Neutrality might kill BitTorrent?

If we build it they will come: It's time to own our own last mile

In a perverse way, part of me hopes the assholes opposing net neutrality win this fight. It'd be the quickest way to irradicate their corporate malfeasance from our society. Short term pain for long term gain.

Words cannot capture how grumpy I am with the telcos and cable operators. South Koreans have better broadband than me. No slight to our buddies across the Pacific Rim. But I want to know why are infrastructure isn't as good or better.

by zappini on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 02:21:23 PM PST

---

That was just too priceless:

  http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/30/activism_is_a_game/

by m3047 on Sat Jul 01, 2006 at 11:50:53 PM PST

---

when you said she was on the "right" side of this one.  DON'T DO THAT!  

And glad to see Cantwell DIDwell on this issue.

by Pen on Fri Jun 30, 2006 at 03:41:38 PM PST

---

I've been in the IT racket for a long time. The advocates for net neutrality were entirely unpersuasive in their public arguments, and I was left with the more rationalized than reasonable conclusion that this was about people who didn't want to pay for their Torrents bandwidth, or maybe pay extra for low latency+high bandwidth for their VoIP (which they haven't paid any number of telecomm taxes on): the "end to end cargo cult".

But when Maria Cantwell (I probably feel about Maria like a lot of Republicans felt about Slade) came out defending net neutrality I sent her a note.

I got a pretty interesting reply from her office today, chock full of technical and legislative details. I'll spare everybody the gory details (don't want to encourage people to consume mass quantities of psychotropic substances, eh Belltowner?), so here's what I'm thinking:

I had no idea we were at the tipping point of returning to the point where you had to buy your "phone" from the "telcos".

But that's my take-away.

by m3047 on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 07:09:26 PM PST

---

Dear Mr. Morris ,

Thank you for contacting me on network neutrality. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

I co-sponsored the Snowe-Dorgan 'Internet Freedom Preservation Act' (S.2917) because I believe that when it comes to the future of the Internet, there is nothing more important than preserving a system that fosters innovation and is free from the discriminatory practices that may stifle competition and restrict access to the marketplace of ideas. It is urgent that Congress take action now because after last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision and subsequent rule issued by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to deregulate broadband over phone lines, there is no law that prevents network operators from giving its
own content and services preferential treatment over that offered by unaffiliated parties.

Last August, at the same time it deregulated broadband over phone lines, also known as DSL, the FCC adopted four net neutrality principles. They
are:

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.

To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

While these principles were an important first step, they do not fully address the range of concerns, and more importantly are not enforceable
by law or regulation.

As you may know, on June 8, 2006, the House of Representatives passed the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act" (COPE), which grants the FCC authority to enforce its August 2005 network neutrality principles in complaint proceedings. In addition, COPE would
establish fines of up to $500,000 per violation and require the FCC to resolve network neutrality complaints within 90 days. A stronger net
neutrality amendment, addressing the issue of "non-discrimination" was offered and defeated at the Energy and Commerce Committee mark up of the
COPE Act as well as on the House floor.

In the Senate, on May 1, 2006 Senator Stevens, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, introduced the Communications, Consumer's Choice,
and Broadband Deployment Act (S. 2686). The first version of the Act only required the FCC report annually to Congress on net neutrality and
make recommendations if necessary. Even though subsequent drafts of the Act improved on the first version by adopting language closer to House-passed language on net neutrality, overall, the net neutrality provisions in S. 2686 still fell far short of what I believe is necessary to protect consumers and businesses that rely on the Internet. At the Senate Commerce Committee mark up of the Act, I co-sponsored an amendment with Senators Snowe, Dorgan, Boxer, and Kerry that would add a critical fifth principle to what the FCC adopted last year and make all the principles enforceable. The fifth principle is a "non-discrimination principle" that states simply "end users shall be entitled to service from each broadband Internet access provider that does not discriminate in the carriage and treatment of Internet traffic based on the source, destination, or ownership of such traffic".

After a long debate in the Commerce Committee on June 28th, the amendment failed on an 11 to 11 vote. The Act was subsequently reported out of Committee to the full Senate without my support, largely due to the lack of "non-discrimination" net neutrality amendment. Please be assured I will keep your views in mind and continue to fight for a fair, enforceable, net neutrality language to be included into the Act if and when it gets to the Senate floor.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for
Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington
state.  If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov.  Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,
Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

For future correspondence with my office, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

by m3047 on Tue Jul 11, 2006 at 08:17:54 AM PST

---