---

The supporters of Net Neutrality include leading high-tech companies such as Amazon.com, Earthlink, EBay, Google, Intel, Microsoft, Skype, Vonage and Yahoo. Prominent national figures such as Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, Stanford law professor Lawrence Lessig and FCC Commissioner Michael Copps have called for stronger Net Neutrality protections.

Editorial boards at the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News and Christian Science Monitor all have urged congress to save the Internet.

---

---

Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to work correctly.

---

---

Stopping the Big Giveaway
By John Kerry

On Wednesday in the Senate Commerce Committee I warned that those of us who believe in net neutrality will block legislation that doesn't get the job done.

It looks like that's the fight we're going to have.

The Commerce Committee voted on net neutrality and it failed on an 11-11 tie. This vote was a gift to cable and telephone companies, and a slap in the face of every Internet user and consumer.

It will not stand.

I voted against this lousy bill for two reasons: because net neutrality and internet build-out are crucial to building a more modern and fair Information Society, and both were pushed aside by the Republicans.

Everyone says they don't want the new world we're living in to be marked by the digital divide -- the term is so cliched it's turned to mush -- but yesterday was a test of who is willing to ask corporate America to do anything to fix it, and the Commerce Committee failed miserably. Why are United States Senators afraid to say that companies should be expected to foster growth by building out their broadband networks to increase access?

Free and open access to the internet is something all Americans should enjoy, regardless of what financial means they're born into or where they live. It is profoundly disappointing that the Senate is going let a handful of companies hold internet access hostage by legalizing the cherry-picking of cable service providers and new entrants. That is a dynamic that would leave some communities with inferior service, higher cable rates, and even the loss of service. Not to mention inadequate internet service -- in the age of the information.

This bill was passed in committee over our objections. Now we need to fight to either fix it or kill it in the full Senate. Senator Wyden has already drawn a line in the sand -- putting a "hold" on the bill, which prevents it from going forward for now. But there will be a day of reckoning on this legislation soon, make no mistake about it, and we need you to get engaged -- pressure your Senators, follow the issue, demand net neutrality and build-out.

---

Apparently this will be so for a while, to say the least. If you ask me, I think some people were paid off, as a tie in this matter should be VERY unlikely.

Originally posted by emcee

---

I seems like John Kerry's talking about two seperate issues in that letter, net neutrality and selectively servicing areas. I guess there may be two issues covered by one bill (I hate that).

As far as that "Save the Internet" site goes, although I agree with the idea of net neutrality, they seem to be agruing the case for it in a very biased way.

They spend way too much time pushing hypothetical situations like ISPs purposely blocking or slowing down competing services. When the real issue is just ISP's desire to charge extra fee's to content providers and VOIP carriers to use more of the "last mile" bandwidth. Since bandwidth isn't infinate, this would likely lead to other site running slower. I think this is enough reason to support net neutrality, without worrying about mere possibilities when there's proof that they're actually going to happen.

---

Originally posted by Shadic

---

They are also music artists rallying behind this too, one of which is one of my favorites, The Flaming Lips.

But what I don't see, is how even though the support for Net Neutrality is FAR higher than that opposing it, Congress is still neutral on the subject.

Fucking bastard US government. How about listening to the people? v.v

---

Originally posted by Shadic

---

The thing is, we don't want the internet to become just another form of media along with television.

You say the biggest problems are hypothetical, but you've got to realise that it's the same matter of how another thing runs. Try getting something on TV that isn't your local broadcast channel, it's not going to be easy. Even if you get it there, the chances of a real audience are close to nothing.

The internet doesn't work like that. It's not supposed to.

---

Originally posted by emcee

---

As I said, I'm all for the idea of net neutrality. But this "Save the Internet" site bases its argument on bias speculation, rather than focusing on the real issues, which make it no better than the telecom industry's "Hands Off My Internet" propaganda site.

---

Originally posted by Tarale

---

I think Google has been making some threats recently in regards to this. I'm sure I can find a story if I look...

Google to Congress: we will not tolerate net abuse.

---