Net Neutrality how did your elected representatives vote?
Just in case you were interested in the issue, here is a list of how they voted.
Recent Comments
Evil Functions
Support the EFF!
Email addresses to be harvested for spam. Do not use these!
Recent Comments
Evil Functions
Support the EFF!
June 11th, 2006
YAY! I've been wanting to say something nice about my representative for a long time. She voted yes for this bill. Pity there were so many more no votes than yes ones.
I wrote to all of my state's representatives and senators when this bill was still in committee and asked them to support it. Most did not, and only one person, a senator replied to me.
I can't wait to see how long it takes for tiered service to be implemented. I can only hope there is sufficient backlash to halt and reverse it.
June 12th, 2006
I've never really liked your representative (maybe it's just a personal issue, but there you go)…
Here is an interesting view of net neutrality and private property.
And here is an interesting article from wired that essentially points out that the Internet has and always will be tiered…
June 13th, 2006
I find that she tends to make her life more difficult and distracting than is necessary for an elected official. She could use her political capital more effectively if she did not engage in stunts like the recent one involving her altercation with a police officer.
I think Doc Searls’ argument is flawed. The Internet was originally developed, built, and maintained by tax dollars and its backbone was owned by us. It was essentially given over to private interests in the hopes of spurring commercial development and with it, increased tax revenue. The companies that own it now did not build it. I am sure they’ve put money into expanding and modernizing it. They did so in the same way that any business will maintain and improve an asset to enhance profit. Because we created it and then gave it over, I think we should retain some say in how they use it. Further, the communications companies collected more money from us that was earmarked for specific improvements to the Internet. Remember "fiber to the curb"? Remember your post about what happened to that money, ET? They’ve not used the money as indicated nor have they made any effort to return it. In my view, this tells me that these companies should not have more turned over to them, and that they should be regulated to protect us from them.
His comparison of railroads to the interstate highway system intrigues me. Either he didn’t know or chose to omit that the rails were mostly built by us. If the federal government had not heavily subsidized construction of railways and infrastructure, then we may never have seen the huge freight moving system we have nor would we have had the once impressive passenger moving system. Of course government is going to trump private money in large scale spending matters, especially on infrastructure. Governmens play by different rules and have different goals, though they are often complimentary since more business transactions means more tax revenue.
The "Wired" article made some good points. One was the same I’ve been making ever since this issue became known to me months ago. Companies favoring the Markey ammendment to the COPE Act already pay for the bandwidth they need to operate as viable businesses. They add more all the time as need dicates. They should not have to pay what amounts to a bribe in order for their brand or service to get to me faster than another. I am reminded of the practice in grocery stores of vendors paying bribes to stores and managers to dedicate shelf space for their products. I discovered that practice years ago and found it appalling. One difference worth noting is that those shelves are entirely the result of private dollars, and as result, they can demand bribes if they can get them. I find it reprehensible and unethical, but that is probably why I will never be a rich capitalist.