If you believe in true Net Neutrality, it’s time to get on the phones and try to prevent Senator Ted Stevens from calling a vote on his Net Neutrality bill (S.2686) as the Senate goes into recess. Basically, no one is going to be there after Thursday and yet Stevens is going to try and get a cloture vote through so a filibuster can be prevented and the bill can be considered in the lame duck session after November elections before the Senate leaves for the August recess.
Stevens is shooting for a cloture vote on Thursday and has plans to keep everyone in a lame duck session to force a vote on net neutrality after Congress is supposed to be in recess. If you can’t win fair and square, you try the smarmy tactics…please hit the phones.” – FireDogLake
Email or call these swing voters on the committee with your concerns. Remember, be polite but insistent that these senators appear and vote against cloture to assure that Stevens’ bill does not pass:
Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) – Email - Phone: (202) 224-4843
Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) – Email - Phone: (202) 224-6551
Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) – Email - Phone: (202) 224-4041
[UPDATE 8-1-2006]
Here are Senator Ron Wyden’s June 28th (D-Oregon) remarks objecting to Stevens’ bill, made on the floor of the senate–for some background.
[via Daily KOS via Firedoglake]
#1 by George on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
The internet is a series of tubes. Call Mario!
#2 by Random Gen-Xer on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Isn’t it time for Senator Methusela to lay down in the coffin? Look at this guy. He is a relic!
#3 by dick clark on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
look up “smarmy”, that’s not what it means. He probably is smarmy because politicians pretend they are on your side and rarely say anything negative or come out against you, but he’s not smarmy by working behind the scenes or manipulating the rules.
#4 by Will on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
This isn’t just a truck that you can put something in…
#5 by AM on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
In some way Ted Stevens IS correct.
The Internet is not a truck…
#6 by Karl D on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
I sent all of those senators an Internet the other day, but none of them got it…
#7 by DJFelix on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Tisk tisk … you crazy Kos Kidz are at it again … Do you really know what Net Neutrality is? It’s MORE GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF THE INTERNET. Is that what you really want?
Thanks for the heads up though. Sent faxes to the three senators on the list, and will follow up with calls encouraging the cloture vote. Cheers!
#8 by ColdCore on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
What kind of fossilized plankton do we have attempting to run this country anyway? Who votes for these lumps of clay??!!??
#9 by PipChaos on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
The tube was full, so he probably couldn’t access an online dictionary to look up “smarmy”.
#10 by Jules C on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Typical of government, thier email portals all failed. Feel strongly enough about this to FAX them. The internet as a level playing field constitutes the greatest democratizer in the world. A tiered internet changes that.
Lieberman — 202-224-9750; Nelson — 202-228-0012; Lincoln — 202-228-1371
Pingback: BlackhevaDotCom » Blog Archive »
#11 by Coyote on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
I just feel sorry for the aid that told him the internet was a series of tubes before that speach he/she was prolly caned pretty quick. Besides before that he didnt even know the peasants had movable type!!!!
#12 by raptorGT on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Emailed. The regulation of network traffic is something managed by a particular piece of load-balancing hardware called a packetshaper. Think of it as a partition manager, but moves the partitions according to how much speed you need. For example, out of 1mb, 128k goes to IM traffic and email, 512k goes to http downloads, and the rest is either cut up furthermore or left as flexible “slack” used for additional traffic. Bills like this are passed by the uneducated…
#13 by Chris Giddings on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
“Who votes for these lumps of clay??!!??”
In all likelihood it’s our parents and grandparents. Since our parents are of the babyboomer generation they outnumber us greatly and can easily swing the votes especially the late gen babyboomers who are known to be MUCH more conservative than their earlier counterparts and let things such as Stem Cell research (which I support) and Abortion become deciding factors on who they vote for rather than deciding based on who really is the best fit to improve their quality of life.
#14 by Karen Woodiel on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Thanks for the heads-up. I’ve sent my 2 cents.
#15 by gman on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
What a retard! I am appalled that this “series of tubes” is controlled by these morons who call themselves civil servants. Talk about an oxymoron – ha!
What is it going to take to shake the crap out of people to wake them up and see the truth? This is all run by the corporate fat cats who only have their salary and shareholder’s interest. When I say share holder I mean the one’s who own a majority of stock not the people like me who may one or two shares in some mutual fund.
I think it’s time to take the whole lot out for a long walk off a short pier.
Stop the insanity.
Remember: Vote republican! – It’s easier than thinking!
#16 by Red White And Blue on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
This is for DJFelix:
You wrote “Thanks for the heads up though. Sent faxes to the three senators on the list, and will follow up with calls encouraging the cloture vote. Cheers!”
First this is obviously U.S. government we are talking about here. Anyone who ends a sentence in “Cheers!” is most likely not American or you are an import from the UK. So please “SOD Off”.
#17 by Keepit on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
> Tisk tisk … you crazy Kos
> Kidz are at it again …
> Do you really know what
> Net Neutrality is? It’s
> MORE GOVERNMENT
> REGULATION OF THE INTERNET.
Not really. This is an argument invented by the Telcos and polished to fit with the messaging of their republican lap dogs. The internet is a public utility delivered over DSL and Cable networks. These networks were given a monopoly on imminent domain and are guaranteed profits by the state. We have a right to say that the internet should work equally for every web service just like we have the right to say that the electric company can’t dictate what kind of appliances we plug into the wall based on which manufacturer pays them the most.
#18 by Zort on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
MONOPOLIES REGULATE THINGS MUCH WORSE THAN THE GOVERNMENT, BOZO. What, like industry has never screwed anything up?
Clue truck with the history books. You just missed it. (Look up Vanderbilt and railroads).
#19 by Michael Olenick on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
PLEDGE DONATIONS TO WHOMEVER HE’S RUNNING AGAINST.
These guys don’t care about anything but MONEY and the telecomm’s have bribed (er, I mean lobbied) this guy with lots of that.
The solution is easy: if everybody would pledge $20-$50 to be held by an organization like moveon.org that will be earmarked to torpedo the career of Sen Stevens he may actually change his behavior. If Google offered to match the donations the good Senator’s ears would likely perk up.
#20 by Joe Wertz on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
I really don’t understand why the public and corporations want the government more involved in the economy.
As DJFelix said, Net Neutrality is in fact government regulation. Your trying to get a bill passed that limits how a private company operates. Sorry folks but thats government regulation. You can’t really argue about it.
The problem here is that the gov got involved way before this snit about net neutrality happened. Personally, I don’t understand why we gave tax breaks to corporations to lay down cable to begin with and expected them to be honest and forthright about it. No company ANYWHERE should get ANY form of government exemption. Just like Joe Public should expect the government to protect him from the big bad corporations.
#21 by redbeard on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
from wikipedia Net neutrality is this:The term Network neutrality was coined in 2005 by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu. It has traditionally meant the neutrality of the basic Internet protocols with respect to the diverse ways in which they can be used. This is more often called “content neutrality” or “application neutrality”. In accordance with the network engineering principle of layering, the network protocol, IP, was designed only to ensure that information moves from one computer to another. A neutral network, in this sense, does not inspect the information that it moves, but leaves interpretation to higher-layer protocols. By design, IP provides different levels of service and priority.
Many advocates for net neutrality represent it as the application of common carrier rules to Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and broadband telecommunications carriers, thereby requiring ISPs to manage all Internet traffic on equal terms. Critics dispute this interpretation of common carrier law, stating that common carriers may offer different levels of service for certain applications at different price points, as long as pricing is rational and non-discriminatory.
Network neutrality has become a contested area of law in the United States as a result of competition and merger and acquisition activity between telephone companies and digital cable operators, controversial statements by Telco officials, and several other factors. Monopoly telephone networks have traditionally been subject to common-carrier rules, but information on cable networks has been treated as expression that the operator can filter at its discretion under the First Amendment. As the two types of network have increasingly provided the same services and have come under the same ownership, it has become difficult to justify and manage different sets of rules based on the underlying technology, leading to the question of what rules should apply to both. The FCC re-classified DSL as an information service in 2005, the same year that the US Supreme Court in Brand X upheld the classification of cable Internet access as an information service.
(in short it’s less control of content by any organization including the government)
#22 by seepeesate on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Better that it’s regulated by the government, where we have at least some kind of say over the nature of the regulation, than by industry, where we have exactly NO say.
Trackback: Anonymous
Pingback: Musings and reflections » Blog Archive » Can you believe we’re in August already!?
#23 by Scott N on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
I sent emails for my fellow Bostonians
#24 by akd89r on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
In response to…
Joe Wertz – August 1, 2006 comment, “I really don’t understand why the public and corporations want the government more involved in the economy.”
Government has an important place in creating economic policies. It’s NOT a question of why anyone would “want the government more involved in the economy”; it is a question of letting our elected officials know where we stand on net neutrality. This is the REASON that we have a government, to set important policies like this. You do not leave policies making to business; otherwise, the United States may end up with children working in mines (again) or worse. Get your head out of your a**. Enjoy!
BTW: Don’t believe all this crap about goverment bad– companies good. You are being fooled if you do.
#25 by John on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
For those who think ‘net neutrality’ is government regulation. It is, in a way. However, the alternative, which is to give telcos a black check with respect to prioritizing traffic, it worth realizing that the inevitable government regulation that will result from that dwarfs ‘net neutrality’.
This is because once it is out that ISPs can prioritize traffic, there will be absolutely no excuse to deny any existing VOIP customers (of which there are many thousands in most cities across the country) 911 service. Once 911 service gets in to the situation, it will be impossible to avoid government regulation. After all what politician wants to be known as the one in favor of limiting 911 service and endangering children and helping terrorists?
With net neutrality safeguards in place, it is possible to claim that 911 service for VOIP users will always be inherently unreliable, keeping the behemoth of government regulation at bay, at least with respect to how to prioritize Internet traffic.
Pingback: Stevens’ Anti-Net Neutrality Bill Unlikely To Get A Vote Until September »Rotophonic«
#26 by Joe Wertz on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
—akd89r
I am well aware that most companies are money grubbing behemoths with very little oversite. I did not mean to give the impression that I thought otherwise.
My problem, I suppose, is that I’m a laissez-faire idealist. The oversite that I think should control a company is the consumer. The problem with this is that it puts a burden on the consumer to research companies they do business with and there are few people who want to do that. I think the government should insure that companies don’t lie to their customers about what they’re doing, false advertising and such, and child labor laws, to bring up your mining example, but the government should not have a say in how the company runs and what it does with its product. Access to the internet in this case.
For a more radical example, I don’t even like the common-carrier status that the lines have. If some company spends the money to put up lines and they don’t want anyone else using them then your SOL in my book. This is where the tax exemptions I mentioned before come in though, which confuses the issue. Companies got millions in tax credit to put fiberoptics to the curb but now won’t do it and don’t want to share it. So what happens? who really owns the wires? Major example of why the government shouldn’t be involved.
Unlike you I do feel it comes down to whether I want the government in economics, and I say no.
Pingback: » Senator Ted Stevens resorts to dirty tricks to thwart Net Neutrality - Haiku Headlines | Headlines of Today. In 17 syllables. What more do you need?
Pingback: 99c » Senator Ted Stevens resorts to dirty tricks to thwart Net Neutrality
#27 by bj on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
“The oversite that I think should control a company is the consumer.”
That is a fine idea, but the problem is in this case where does a consumer go if he only has two choices for broadband and both are discriminating? The Telecomms and Cable Companies are Regulatory Whores who only decry regulation when it benefits them to do so. The oversight committee, the FCC is in the pocket of the Telecomms. When the Telecomms received billions of dollars in tax incentives by promising to build fiber to every home in America, what happened? They grabbed the money and ran. We, the American Taxpayer, paid the contractors and the contractors reneged on the deal. The Telecomms have BENEFITTED by most regulation. You’ve gotta wonder why they’re now spending millions of dollars to destroy the one bit of regulation that has existed since the beginning of the internet.
And BTW, the internet would not be the successful entity it is today if it wasn’t a Neutral Network. This article tells about another network that is not neutral and how it functions (or doesn’t.)
#28 by William B. Hunter on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Just sent this to Sen Tubes:
In regards to S.2686,
You are a Bozo, A complete and utter Rube. You obviously do not understand even the basics of Internet technology, and yet you are pushing this very destructive bill. Since you obviously don’t understand the implications of this bill, I can only assume you are motivated by greed for campaign contributions. With this in mind, I am donating $100 to whoever runs against you in the next election. I am but one of many Internet users all across the nation that have made the same pledge. You should find a 10 year old to explain how the Internet works. In conclusion, I would like to reiterate, you are a Bozo.
#29 by B-Con on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Quick Note: The link at the end apparantly leads to a search, which has expired. A permenent link is needed.
#30 by iburl on August 1st, 2006
| Quote
Government regulation is not always a bad thing, people. What if these born-again libertarians pushing the telco line had their way with the highway system? “Hey man, if Haliburton want to charge me $200 to go thru their toll booth that’s just freedom baby. If somebody wants to repaint the street in front of my house to add 3 more lanes, that’s just the magic of the marketplace!” Obviously we need laws to protect us from greedy monopolies. If they were not making these power grabs then we would not. But they are. So we do.
Pingback: Senator Stevens and other Weasels - Head-On Headlines
Pingback: chriswallace.eu | Daily Links
Pingback: Play My Cards Right / links for 2006-08-02
Pingback: EveryDigg » Blog Archive » Senator Ted Stevens resorts to dirty tricks to thwart Net Neutrality
Pingback: Tech Industry » Senator Ted Stevens resorts to dirty tricks to thwart Net Neutrality
Pingback: » Senator Ted Stevens resorts to dirty tricks to thwart Net Neutrality