Monday, June 12, 2006

Net Neutrality: Congress Votes, Shays & DeLauro Get It

Net Neutrality means that every site on the internet, and every service on the internet is reachable at the same speed. The determining factor is how much bandwidth you as the consumer pays for. The Telcos want to change that. They want to sell preferred access on the Internet, kinda like selling express lanes to specific destinations starting at your driveway.

From CNN:

Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.

But why change a good thing? Right now, the Internet is a level playing field for everyone. The wonky term for this is "Net neutrality." When the Internet is neutral, everyone can use it, just like everyone can use public roads or airwaves. All businesses on the Internet get an equal shot at success.


Full results here, but our delegation voted this way:

DeLauro -Y
Larson - Y
Shays - Y

Johnson -N
Simmons-N

Good thing Shays and DeLauro are looking our for the consumer, but Johnson and Simmons showed either their ignorance of the issue, or could care less about the small businesses, consumers and fair play in this state.

Keep the Internet neutral, fair and free, By Craig Newmark Special to CNN Saturday, June 10, 2006; Posted: 12:23 p.m. EDT (16:23 GMT)

UPDATED: I inadvertently left off Larson. He gets it too.

11 comments:

disgruntled_republican said...

Is there a link to that report?

turfgrrl said...

The CNN report? Try this link here.

ctblogger said...

You can find out more on this VERY important issue by clicking here.

I can not stress how serious an issue this is for all bloggers (liberal and conservative).

cgg said...

Thanks for mentioning how our reps voted.

bluecoat said...

this article on Shays probably deserves some airing here...

turfgrrl said...

bluecoat,

It's a nice long article that unfortunately simplifies Shays' postion on Iraq. First, Shays' should know that it was the Reagan administration that funded Hussein because the American position was to support Iraq over Iran following the theocratic takeover by the Ayatollah.

Second, if Shays' is to be believed, he should have known that the evidence that Hussein had WMD was false, because the CIA internal intelligence said just that. He voted and supported Bush's ramp up to invade Iraq. And he did so at the expense of finishing the job in Afghanistan, where the Taliban financed and trained terrorists that attacked the WTC and Pentagon. Afghanistan's Taliban is resurgent, opium production and distribution is at an all-time high, and we are losing control there.

I don't doubt the sincerity of Shay's beliefs, but they are tragically wrong. "

Before the 9/11 attacks, Shays presided over more than 20 hearings on the terrorist threat as chairman of the influential House Subcommittee on National Security. He was an early sentinel, prophetically arguing that America was ignoring an important menace, lacked a coordinated strategy and needed to create a single national agency to combat terrorism. His journey toward a consistent anti-terrorism strategy since 9/11 has probably been more intellectual and emotional than that of any other American politician"

In this entire article there is not one mention of Afghanistan. Not one mention of the Taliban. Once more we get GOP talking points woven together 9/11 and Iraq.

Churchill wouldn't have picked the Austria's Englebert Dolfuss over Germany or Italy's fascists.

turfgrrl said...

Dodd supports Net neutrality in the Senate. Dodd issues statement:
link here

"There is no denying that the internet has revolutionized the way that Americans work, communicate, and access information. With more Americans accessing broadband and other high speed technology, the internet will certainly continue to serve as an important tool for technological innovation.

"Unfortunately, in 2005, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) eliminated regulations that preserve openness on the Internet. I disagree with that action; I support the principle of "net neutrality." Since its inception, the internet has been an open system and this openness has proved to be an effective facilitator of market innovations and economic growth. Limiting or restricting access may sacrifice future opportunities for further innovation.

"Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) have introduced S. 2917, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, a bill that preserves network neutrality. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation."


Lieberman rumored to also support net neutrality.

bluecoat said...

turrffy, i posted the Hartford Courant article on Shays; I am not defending it; there are a number of things wrong with your rebuttal as well but the past is the past; there is a great Oped in today's Norwalk Advocate from retired two star John Batiste (who is just back from Iraq) on what is wrong and has been wrong with Rumsfeld but I can't find it on-line....

CTOctaneBlue said...

Turfgrrl- just to be clear, Larson, DeLauro and Shays voted yes to maintain net neutrality, right?

MikeCT said...

Lamont issued a statement weeks ago in favor of Net Neutrality.

Chris MC said...

CTOctane: Correct.