SAVE THE INTERNET!!!

[nnarum23]

Quote:

---

Since when has that stopped anyone?

---

Wouldn't that fall under the Antitrust act?

 

[rich82]

This sucks on so many fronts....


Tellecommunication companies can essentially "lease" high speeds to
the highest bidders willing to pay, while the poor cannot...

It's essentially real estate on the internet in the simplest form.....

From a business standpoint it's brilliant, but its wrong on so many levels....I saw a commercial that made google look like they were trying to control the internet with the "net neutrality" concept....Our government is VERY DECIEVING...they take us for FOOLS.

 

[trunks206]

Quote:

---

Wouldn't that fall under the Antitrust act?

---

^ Since the Antitrust Act was made to break up/prevent the major monopolies like Standard Oil and other of its time, the Exon-Mobile and other super mergers of recent history show that there are ways around that.


Damn it didnt get added...come on people please do all you can.

I sent my letters through savetheinternet.com we need to stop all this crap.


Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 

[icey heat]

Quote:

---

I sent my letters through savetheinternet.com we need to stop all this crap.

---

we ALL need to do this.
Stop *****N'
Start a Revolution
www.SoleRedemption.com
refs in profile.

 

[ninjahood]

he got a white boy fightin' for our freedom...

un-28-2006 17:01
Wyden Blocks Telecom Legislation Over Ineffective Net Neutrality Provision
Salem-News.com

Senator wants legislation to include stronger safeguards for consumers to prevent discrimination in Internet access and usage.

Senator Ron Wyden

(Washington D.C.) - U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) today announced that he has placed a hold on major telecommunications legislation recently approved by the Senate Commerce Committee until clear language is included in the legislation that prevents discrimination in Internet access.

The legislation as currently written does not provide an effective policy on net neutrality, and instead opens the Internet up to large telecommunications companies and cable providers to charge consumers and small businesses new and discriminatory fees on top of those they already charge for Internet access.

In March, Wyden introduced the first stand-alone net neutrality legislation in Congress, S. 2360, the Internet Non-Discrimination Act. Wyden is also a co-sponsor of a similar measure offered this spring by U.S. Senators Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) to preserve net neutrality.

Wyden has long been an advocate of a technology-neutral Internet. He is the author of the Internet tax ban, which the Senate Committee on Finance today voted to make permanent, as well as numerous other laws, including ones to protect consumers from spyware and adware.

As a matter of policy, Wyden publicly announces any holds or formal objection he lodges with regard to nominees or legislation. The full text of Wydens statement submitted to the Congressional Record today follows:

Statement for the Record

U.S. Senator Ron Wyden

June 28, 2006

Mr. President, the major telecommunications legislation reported today by the Senate Commerce Committee is badly flawed. The bill makes a number of major changes in the countrys telecommunications law but there is one provision that is nothing more than a license to discriminate. Without a clear policy preserving the neutrality of the Internet and without tough sanctions against those who would discriminate, the Internet will be forever changed for the worse.

This one provision threatens to divide the Internet into technology haves and have nots. This one provision concentrates even more power in the hands of the special interests that own the pipelines to the Internet. This one provision codifies discrimination on the Internet by a handful of large telecommunications and cable providers. This one provision will allow large, special interests to saddle consumers and small businesses alike with new and discriminatory fees over and above what they already pay for Internet access. This one small provision is akin to hurling a giant wrecking ball at the Internet.

The inclusion of this provision compels me to state that I would object to a unanimous consent request to the Senate proceeding with this legislation until a provision that provides true internet neutrality is included.

This bill means the American people will no longer be able to use the Internet free from discrimination. Sure, the time it takes you to access the web might be slower with dial up, or you might zoom around the web at warp speed, but you get to choose the speed. Today, whatever speed you chose doesnt make any difference in which sites you can visit. You still get access to any site you want. This is the beauty and the genius of the Internet. The net is neutral.

The days of unfettered, unlimited and free access to any site on the world wide web, what I call net neutrality, are being threatened. Those who own the pipes, the giant cable and phone companies, want to discriminate in which sites you can access. If they get their way, not only will you have to pay more for faster speeds, youll have to pay more for something you get for free today: unfettered access to every site on the world wide web. To me, thats discrimination, pure and simple.

The Internet has thrived precisely because it is neutral. It has thrived because consumers, and not some giant cable or phone company, get to choose what they want to see and how quickly they get to see it. I am not going to allow a bill to go forward that is going to end surfing the web free of discrimination.

The large Interests have made it clear that if this bill moves forward, they will begin to discriminate. A Verizon Communications executive has called for an end to Googles free lunch. A Bell South executive has said that he wants the Internet to be turned into a pay-for-performance marketplace. What they and other cable and phone company executives are proposing is that instead of providing equal access for everyone to the same content at the same price, they will set up sweetheart arrangements to play favorites. Without net neutrality protections, this bill is bad news for consumers and anyone who today enjoys unlimited access to all of the Nets applications, service and content.

There is no doubt in my mind that American consumers and small business will be the losers in this fight if this bill is allowed to move forward. Right now, a computer science major at the University of Oregon who is working on the next big thing for the Internet. But she will never get the chance to get the next big thing out there if she cannot pay the big fees that will be charged tomorrow for the same Internet access she gets for free today.

Right now in Pendleton, Oregon there is a small family wheat farm where dad is monitoring the fertilizer on their crop via a new web-service program that his son bought. If the network operators have their way, this web-service will get so expensive that it will be out of reach for this family farmer.

As a United States Senator who has devoted himself to keeping the Internet free from discrimination, from discriminatory taxes and regulations to assuring offline protections apply to online consumer activities as well, I cannot stand by and allow the bill to proceed with this provision. The inclusion of this provision compels me to inform my colleagues that I would object to any unanimous consent request for the United States Senate to move to consider this bill.

There are other provisions in this legislation, such as the one relating to my proposal for the creation of kids television tiers, that are problematic, but none of them rises to the same level of concern as the one relating to network neutrality. Therefore, I will object to any further action on this telecommunications bill until it includes a strong net neutrality provisions that will truly benefit consumers and small business. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my statement be printed in the record.


team platano

 

[jay tha answer]

Dear Mr. -------:

Thank you for writing to share with me your concerns regarding internet neutrality. As you may know, I support net neutrality. The open architecture of the Internet has been the critical element that has made it the most revolutionary communications medium since the advent of the television.

Each day on the Internet, views are discussed and debated in an open forum without fear of censorship or reprisal. The Internet as we know it does not discriminate among its users. It does not decide who can enter its marketplace and it does not pick which views can be heard and which ones silenced. It is the embodiment of the fundamental democratic principles upon which our nation has thrived for hundreds of years.

I have always, and will continue to, strongly and unequivocally support these principles. As I have worked throughout my Senate career to make broadband access readily available throughout New York State and our nation, I believe that maintaining an open Internet coupled with more broadband access is necessary if we are to meet the promise and the potential of the Internet to disseminate ideas and information, enhance learning, education and business opportunities for all Americans and improve and uplift our citizenry.

We must embrace an open and non-discriminatory framework for the Internet of the 21 st century. Therefore, it is my intention to be an original cosponsor of the net neutrality legislation proposed by Senators Dorgan and Snowe to ensure that open, unimpaired and unencumbered Internet access for both its users and content providers is preserved as Congress debates the overhaul of our nation's telecommunications laws.

Thank you again for writing about this issue that is important to me and to so many of my constituents. Please be assured that I will fight any efforts that would fundamentally alter the inherently democratic structure of the Internet. Updates on this and many other important issues being discussed before the United States Senate, can be found on my website clinton.senate.gov.


Sincerely yours,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

​

​

?[/url]​

 

[shaft]

I'm on board...this ain't right.

.
TEAM Redundancy TEAM

I can take my shoes off, but you will always be ugly.

 

[n30 g30]

I'll explain the techincal aspects to why Congress is even discussing this in SparkNotes style.

Main point:
Everything is turning digital. Television, and phones are already using up bandwidth. Eventually, everyone's toaster will be able to connect to the internet.

Problem:
Bandwidth is being used and it's messy. Everything is going to the lines at once, from your television porn, to your computer porn, to the your $3.99 per minute sex calls. And it's putting a strain on the internet, which is mainly computer porn.

Solution (by network companies like AT&T and Comcast):
To streamline and organize all your porn in order. To restrict certain porn platforms (either phone, TV, or computer) from going in faster or slower, depending on where you're getting your porn from.
One of the ways they were going to do this was to streamline bigger websites through the 'net, like Google. It'll technically make things faster, but the want the big companies to pay more for these priority streams.

Fear by internet companies (like Microsoft and Google):
Paying for internet.

Fear by small internet companies:
Certain content and sites are going to luck out. If more bandwidth is allowed into one place more than the other, it wouldn't be fair. It wouldn't be equal.

I'm probably making mistakes somewhere. Get it now?

 

[thuglifexl]

just remember C.R.E.A.M.

the telecom companies have a right to profit from the networks they've built. in fact the more they can profit from selling bandwidth, the more incentive to upgrade their networks with fiber optics they have. so we end up getting faster internet

dont believe anything when $$$ is involved...the proponents of "net neutrality" are big companies like microsoft, google, yahoo etc (C.R.E.A.M.)

 

[kinglouisxiv]

I signed the petition.

​

​

AIM: marktomez​

 

[skratchpixels]

Quote:

---

the telecom companies have a right to profit from the networks they've built.

---

that's what's being decided now.

the internet isn't a service they invented. The just padded to it. The internet is bigger than the companies. they have no right to take over it. they have the right to profit by providing the internet, not controlling it.

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

---

imagine you're friend is on an AT&T network and she creates a myspace. You're on a Comcast network. If 'net neutrality' doesn't exist, you might not be able to view it because myspace didn't give up some cash.

imagine if this happened before Google, Myspace, or Facebook. These companies wouldn't be able to grow and they would be nowhere.

Imagine doing a research paper and you couldn't access half of all the information that google gave.

This would also affect email and instant messaging. File sharing would be horrible.

Imagine not being able to go logon on to Niketalk to use the freedom of speech that you believe the network companies should take away.

vs. Jin
Paypal to UNICEF's Tsunami Disaster Relief​

 

[cirusblack]

just signed it

this is F'ed up

are freedom is being torn away bit by bit

[/b]​

 

[craze191st]

i posted this before but nobody paid attention to it

|I

anyways i hope we can get net neutrality back >:

[/url]​

​

[/url]​

 

[shoematicss]

wait, so this would only affect those that live in the U.S. and using internet provided by U.S. companies right? So lets say if im in canada and I go on a server hosted by a non U.S. company, it wouldn't affect me right?

It's stuff like this that makes me not like living in the states sometimes, got to be vigilante about protecting our rights

 

[rexanglorum]

Quote:

---

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

---

The First Amendment is not a blank check to get what ever you may want. It bars congress from making a law that infringes upon free speech ( with the exceptions that most people are aware of ). The FIrst Amendment does not compell congress to impose restrictions or mandates on private businesses.


If broadband gets to the point that it is so scarce that it has to be prioritized by price, than let it do that.

If there is not enough broadband for everybody, let it go to the highest traffic sites that value it the most and pay the most. Allowing a market for broadband to exist would create a price level that would intice telecom companies to create more broadband.


The internet has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade with very little government interference. This campaign to "save the internet" seems like a manufactured crisis to justify needless government intervention into an area that has thrived without it.

​

​

AIM Roy Anglais

 

[youngjordan23]

Internet gives people the ability to do whatever they please. America does'nt like that end result thier gonna try and shut it down.
The American dream - Our way

​

​

 

[n30 g30]

Quote:

---

The First Amendment is not a blank check to get what ever you may want. It bars congress from making a law that infringes upon free speech ( with the exceptions that most people are aware of ). The FIrst Amendment does not compell congress to impose restrictions or mandates on private businesses.

---

free speech > private business.

just because people are making money off it, doesn't make it right for people to take rights away.

Quote:

---

If broadband gets to the point that it is so scarce that it has to be prioritized by price, than let it do that.

If there is not enough broadband for everybody, let it go to the highest traffic sites that value it the most and pay the most. Allowing a market for broadband to exist would create a price level that would intice telecom companies to create more broadband.

---

well it's the broadband companies own fault. they're the ones pushing all this nonsense through internet lines. they don't own the internet. I say they should have to create their own network for these types of materials. That would be the most simple solution. The internet should just be use for the internet. I think they only push stuff through it so they have an excuse to do whatever they want.

Quote:

---

The internet has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decade with very little government interference. This campaign to "save the internet" seems like a manufactured crisis to justify needless government intervention into an area that has thrived without it.

---

the needless intervention comes from these companies that want to push high def and ip phones through the lines that was solely created for information. Now people have to pay to put their information on the line.

this is just as bad as other countries that restrict certain websites to the people.

I really can't believe anyone would stand up for something so rediculous.

that's like me building a dam and telling people it's to make it better, then not letting them get water until they paid. It's a giant scam.

 

[jdf07ster]

my net is still here guys????

should i panic?

 

[jordan23collecta]

r u serious??


that is horrible!



SEATTLE: BEST CITY IN THE WORLD

 

[airpowerranger]

we really need to save the internet guys

 

[cz7]

imagine NT loaded real slow and stuff and ISS cut some deals to speed thier board up
Kick Push

 

[xxlil ryanxx]

thats not cool at all

>:

 

[dajoka004]

Here's the response I finally got. Still waiting on another.

Quote:

---

Dear David:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of Net Neutrality and the need to ensure unfettered access to the Internet. I appreciate your comments and value the opportunity to respond.

As you may be aware, the Senate Commerce Committee has recently considered and voted on various provisions in the Consumers Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. I agree with many of the individuals who have contacted me or whom I have spoken with, that there is a need for telecommunications reform. Thoughtful telecommunications reform legislation will greatly benefit consumers by increasing competition and, therefore, consumer choices for communications services such as video, voice and broadband. During the debate over telecommunications reform, Net Neutrality has emerged as a major focus and an important issue that must be addressed.

The Internet is the greatest invention since the Gutenberg Press. I have long characterized the Internet as an individual empowerment zone in need of Congress protection from taxation, regulation and interference. So far, we have been successful in shielding the Internet from meddlesome governmental involvement and allowing it to mature into an incredible engine for economic growth, innovation and individual empowerment. The Internets ability to remain a virtual space where all consumers have the ability to freely access information and services has been one of the cornerstones for its remarkable growth and importance in our daily lives.

Among the measures I supported was the Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act, which addresses the issue of Net Neutrality in a way that promotes Internet freedom by keeping government regulation at a minimum and protecting the rights of unfettered access by consumers. The Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act protects consumers by requiring Internet service providers to allow each subscriber to:
Access and post any lawful content;
Access any web page;
Run any voice, video or email application, software, or service;
Run any search engine;
Run any other application, software or service;
Connect any legal device to their Internet access equipment; and
Receive in clear and plain language information on estimated speeds, capabilities, limitations, and pricing of any Internet services.
In addition, this measure requires that the FCC report to Congress annually on Net Neutrality and ensure that the Internet remains a vibrant and competitive free market of ideas and innovation.

While I voted against the Snowe-Dorgan Amendment, I firmly believe that the principles of Internet freedom, as I have explained, were properly addressed in the underlying bill. Under the legislation, all Internet users are guaranteed to have access to any application or service within their bandwidth. Before any additional government action is taken, we must be absolutely sure that it is necessary. Continued investment in and innovation on the Internet should not be stifled by needless, burdensome federal regulations.

Please know that I will keep your thoughtful comments in mind as this measure is debated on the Senate floor; and that I will continue to be an ardent supporter of the Internet, working to ensure that everyone has affordable access to this important tool. You may be interested to know that I offered an amendment to the Consumers Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 to permanently ban State and local taxes, which could average 18 percent, on Internet access. My amendment was adopted with a 19-3 vote and will now be part of the legislation moving forward. I look forward to continuing to work towards final passage of this vital legislation that protects Internet users from harmful State and local government taxes and also protects against any interference with their Internet access by network operators.

Please feel free to contact me again about issues important to you. If you would like to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America, please sign up on my website (allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family.

With warm regards, I remain


Sincerely,


Senator George Allen

---

me![/url]​

[/center]

 

[vabigpoppa]

@ george allen, i really hope he doesnt run for president like it has been rumored

[size=-1]AIM[/size] **E-Mail​

 

[ninjahood]

Quote:

---

While I voted against the Snowe-Dorgan Amendment, I firmly believe that the principles of Internet freedom

---

back to back hypocrite
team platano