Washblog

Maria puts both feet in the Net Neutrality pool

By switzerblog
Thu Jun 29, 2006 at 11:37:03 AM PST
Section: Diary Topic: General news/info

Maria's on the right side of this one, and in the interest of big picture support for something we can all agree on and which we want the Senate to support, and in the interest of offering not just a stick but the occasional carrot to our elected representatives to guide them on their way, I urge you to sign Maria's petition to support Net Neutrality.  

Y'all know about Net Neutrality - it's what allows Washblog to be seen on all computer screens and not be blocked unless we pay Verizon an identical amount to, say, Washington Mutual.  The big telcos think that the internet should be 'pay for play'; so as you pay them more, they allow your website to be viewed by more people.  It's obviously more complex than this, but that's the gist of it.  Currently, we all pay for access in the general sense, and the more you use, the more they ask you to pay.  Sounds similar, no?  It is.  Essentially, the rules the telcos say they need are already in place.  What they're really asking for is the ability to selectively prevent certain websites, such as ours, from even reaching the internet until we pay them.

In other words, my little ol' blog is run on a $100 a year plan - for 1 bill, I get 2500 email addresses, tons of storage and oodles of bandwidth, most of which I'm not using (I'm probably getting screwed, but I like my host).  Daily Kos, on the other hand, is run on a several thousand dollar a month plan, which gives him the ability to have 650,000 daily readers and several hundred daily diaries - bandwidth I can't afford.  However, regardless of the difference in payscales, my blog is just as easily available to any reader as Daily Kos is.  If the telcos get their way, I would have to meet Kos' payscale to even be seen on the internet.  This bites the big one, and would be a dangerous change to the way we communicate.  

So here's what Maria has to say about it (much to my delight, btw):

Dear Switzer,

I believe that the Internet should stay democratic, access to online information should be open, and no online speech should be more "free" than any other. In short, I believe in net neutrality. Yesterday I was asked to vote my convictions - and I voted to protect net neutrality.

The Senate Commerce Committee, of which I am a member, voted yesterday on a large telecommunications bill that included language endangering net neutrality. I co-sponsored an amendment to the legislation that would preserve net neutrality, but we could not get enough votes to make sure that language was included in the bill.

Because I believe we must protect a free and open Internet, and because the amendment that would have done so was defeated, I voted against passing the entire bill out of committee. But we are in the minority and we lost the vote. Now this bill goes to the floor.

I need you to join me now. We must tell my Senate colleagues we will fight for the principle of nondiscrimination on the Internet.

Sign the petition now.

Net neutrality is a simple concept - it has enabled equal access to the Internet to spread ideas, develop commerce, and build movements online without financial discrimination from the companies controlling the Internet.

But now special interests are asking Congress to end the openness and freedom that built the Internet. Large telecommunication companies want to create a two-tiered Internet, divided between those who will pay top dollar to guarantee their online content gets priority over those who can't pay.

I am committed to vote against any telecommunications bill that did not include a provision or amendment to ensure the continuation of net neutrality. Yesterday I did just that. But the fight isn't over - and I need you to decide which side of this issue you are on.

Sign the petition to protect the Internet now.

Here in the Pacific Northwest we value innovation and creativity. We believe in the power of free enterprise.

I am going to continue the fight to make sure the Internet stays free and open for all Americans and I hope you'll join me.

Thank you,

Maria Cantwell


< Democratic challenger scolds Cantwell on Iraq war stance | Josh Marshall's McGavick SS T-Shirt Contest >
Display: Sort:
Maria puts both feet in the Net Neutrality pool | 11 comments (11 topical)
Good on Maria!
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

* 1 5.00 3 *

I'm glad to see this
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

* 2 5.00 1 *

  • Exactly right by switzerblog, 06/29/2006 03:30:11 PM PST (5.00 / 1)
Ambivalent
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

* 4 5.00 1 *

"The End-to-End Cargo Cult.."
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

* 7 5.00 1 *

LOL you gave me a scare
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

* 5 none 0 *

perhaps a bit premature in my dismissal
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

* 8 none 0 *

letter from Cantwell's office
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 'Intern