The Internet as we know it is facing a serious threat. There’s a debate heating up in Washington, DC on something called “net neutrality” – and it’s a debate that’s so important Google is asking you to get involved. We’re asking you to take action to protect Internet freedom.
In the next few days, the House of Representatives is going to vote on a bill that would fundamentally alter the Internet. That bill, and one that may come up for a key vote in the Senate in the next few weeks, would give the big phone and cable companies the power to pick and choose what you will be able to see and do on the Internet.
Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay.
Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.
Thanks for your time, your concern and your support.
Eric Schmidt, CEO
goyim:
its also curious that Google didn’t seem to care about restrictions in China.
ps. do you only date goyahs?
Monopolist in Chief, Texan, Greaser of Political Palms and all around bad guy- Ed Whitacre
To quote BusinessWeek Interview
How concerned are you about Internet upstarts like Google (GOOG ), MSN, Vonage, and others?
‘How do you think they’re going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain’t going to let them do that because we have spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there’s going to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay for the portion they’re using. Why should they be allowed to use my pipes?
The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment and for a Google or Yahoo! (YHOO ) or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!“
Financial Times Interview
Ed Whitacre, AT&T’s chairman and chief executive, warned on Monday that internet content providers that wanted to use broadband networks to deliver high-quality services such as movie downloads to their customers would have to pay for the service or face the prospect that new investment in high speed networks “will dry up.”
“We have to figure out who pays for this bigger and bigger IP network,” said Mr Whitacre, who was in New York ahead of AT&T’s annual presentation to investors and analysts on Tuesday. “We have to show a return on our investments.”
“I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network – obviously not the piece from the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in Internet access fees – but for accessing the so-called Internet cloud.”
While they have emphasised that they are not seeking to charge additional fees for content and other services delivered on a ‘best effort’ basis, they argue that content providers seeking guaranteed delivery of high quality content should be willing to pay.
“If someone wants to transmit a high quality service with no interruptions and ‘guaranteed this, guaranteed that’, they should be willing to pay for that,” the AT&T chief said.
The TelCos have hired Mike McCurry, former Clinton frontman and have ben liberally spreading around the wealth. Everything from big timely contributions to home district charities (in an election year) to the more usual arrangements.
Went to google. Clicked the petition linkk aandd signed it.
Take time to write the letter, folks. That way your local legislature sees that they arre receiving something other than cookie cutter statements. Also keep the B.S. out of the letter. They don’t need to know that you can’t stand Windows. This is very important.
G-Spank – just by reading your wisdom, one can only asscertain[sp] that your a complete f&*#@!g idiot.
Ed Whitacre sounds like a d-bag with weak and in some cases blatantly incorrect points.
Too late. The House Republicans blocked it yesterday by a vote of 269-152. While I agree that I don’t want the government sticking their nose in the market, there’s only one problem. There IS no market. When telco’s ARE the ISP’s as well as the owners of the network, then a market doesn’t exist and a monopoly does. This is when the government needs to step in. But unfortunately, our representatives have already been bought by the telcos.
So why’s google saying this….and then censoring searches in China?
How do ideals apply in your own backyard, but not when it comes to making a buck overseas? Sad.
After reading a few comments, I think a lot of you don’t understand what net neutrality is all about. It isn’t so much about the end users as it is the content providers. Without net neutrality, the ISP’s like Verizon and Comcast can tell a website that if you want to be on their top level service plan, you need to pay them. Otherwise, a Comcast user may have trouble accessing Google because the Quality of Service may not be that good. Whereas, MSN may have paid Comcast to be on their top level of service, and the Comcast user can access MSN extremely fast but because Google didn’t pay, that Comcast user has trouble connecting to Google.
Its basically extortion, ala The Soprano’s.
I find it very “interesting” that the one OS that clearly stands to gain the most is Windows and its native browser. Don’t think that’s an issue? Here’s but one for-instance: Verizon is a committed keeper and promoter of the MS flame, yes, once in a blue moon you can get some support for Mac OS and Verizon products, but Verizon clearly only wants to produce and sell communications products that are Windows only.
Like it or not, it all fits together. Is it a big conspiracy? No. Its a nakedly obvious monopoly – government sanctioned.
to “Grow Up”
hate people much?
Testimony of Jeannine Kenney of Consumers Union before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Telecommunications & the Internet
“Consumers have suffered under monopolistic cable pricing that has resulted in a 64% increase in rates– approximately 2 1/2 times the rate of inflation– since Congress deregulated the cable industry in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. In addition to skyrocketing rates, consumers have virtually no choice of providers or channel offerings.
…The Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act not only fails to ensure the national franchising system it creates will benefit customers, it almost surely represents a significant step backward. While the legislation laudably protects community rights to establish broadband networks, it eliminates other protections that ensure all residents have access to competitive, advanced communications services. The legislation abolishes communities’ authority to ensure all residents are served by new and existing cable providers without establishing any federal build-out requirements in it’s place, opening a wide door to redlining. It rolls back state and local authority to establish and enforce consumer protections without requiring new, strong federal protections. And it strips the Federal Communications Commission of it’s authority to establish rules ensuring that broadband network owners do not impair or block consumer access to competitive Internet content, services or applications. Moreover, enforcement provisions within the legislation are weak or absent. In short, the legislation not only fails to ensure that consumers will benefit from new video competition, it may expose them to the risk of higher cable rates, reduced quality and reduced access to competitive choices offered via the internet.”.
Fascism– is a radical authoritarian political philosophy that combines elements of corporatism, totalitarianism, extreme nationalism, militarism, anti-communism and anti-liberalism.
“Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.”
so says – Benito Mussolini
and he should know.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Lets not go after Microsoft on this. They were actually on the same side as Google, Amazon, and eBay. None of them want this because without a net neutrality law, all of them will be targets of the telco’s. The only way to stop this would be for all of them to refuse to pay the extortion fees. But it will only take one of them to cave.
But don’t think about those content providers. This will absolutely destroy innovation on the internet. Forget about coming up with the next big thing. As soon as you get popular, you’ll have some guys come to your house and say something like, “you know, it would be a shame if our customers all of sudden couldn’t access your site. You pay us and we’ll make sure that doesn’t happen.”
Way to go Republicans. Sold us out yet again.
Part of me says this may or may not matter. If WiFi gets finalized and can deliver faster speeds to more people in more locations, these cable and phone guys will regret having ever brought this up.
From Testimony of Paul Misener of Amazon.com before the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Telecommunications & the Internet
“…The phone and cable companies are going to fundamentally alter the Internet in AMerica unless Congress acts to stop them. They have the market power, technical means, and regulatory permission to control American consumers’ access to broadband Internet content, and they’ve announced their plans to do so.”
“Currently, consumers pay for internet access, and have the freedom to select lawful content from providers like Amazon, who themselves have invested billions of dollars in content and pay network operators millions of dollars a year for Internet access. We fear a circumstance in which broadband network operators, among whom consumers have no real choice, are permitted to prefer certain content and thereby limit consumer access to other content.”
“What exists (ISP), unfortunately, is at best an oligopoly and, for the vast majority of Americans, a duopoly of the local phone and cable companies. Widespread deployment of alternative broadband technologies capable of high quality video remains a distant hope, and the promise of inter-regional local phone company competition is all but dead. In such oligopolistic conditions, firms can easily can and do leave consumers with fewer services, higher prices, or both.”
“Unless Congress acts soon, American consumers will receive artificially limited choice of broadband Internet content. Phone and cable companies plan to restrict American consumers’ access to such content based in large part on lucrative deals they intend to cut with third parties”
The full text of this is available in PDF at
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/03302006hearing1823/Misener.pdf
It erally makes me wonder What was our Government thinkg by letting a bill like this fall through?
They don’t have the interests of the users in mind at all.
CNet has a good article here: http://news.com.com/House+rejects+Net+neutrality+rules/2100-1028_3-6081882.html?tag=nefd.top
Yes, I notice MDN doesn’t mention that this is a REPUBLICAN-backed initiative, not a “debate.” And yet they’ll post some tripe saying that Democrats would “hypothetically” raise taxes that don’t even exist.
Weak.
“Way to go Republicans. Sold us out yet again.”
Yeah, and 10 Democrats co-sponsored this bill as well you moron. You might want to do a little homework next time…
To Reality Check:
The overall bill, COPE, of which net neutrality is only one part, was cosponsored.
The ENTIRE NET NEUTRALITY AMENDMENT was proposed by DEMOCRATS, you moron, and OPPOSED BY REPUBLICANS.
See here:
http://news.com.com/Republicans+defeat+Net+neutrality+proposal/2100-1028_3-6058223.html
Unfuckingbelievable…you’re all just shameless liars.
“Yes, I notice MDN doesn’t mention that this is a REPUBLICAN-backed initiative, not a “debate.” And yet they’ll post some tripe saying that Democrats would “hypothetically” raise taxes that don’t even exist.”
Read above…Democrats back this initiative as well. You might want to do something called “research” before you spout off with such tripe next time.
H.R. 5252 Bill sponsors:
Joe Barton (R-TX)
Charles F. Bass II (R-NH)
Michael Bilirakis (R-FL)
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
Barbara Cubin (R-WY)
Eliot L. Engel (D-NY)
Michael A. Ferguson (R-NJ)
Vito Fossella (R-NY)
Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH)
Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Jay Inslee (D-WA)
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
Charles W. Pickering (R-MS)
George P. Radanovich (R-CA)
Bobby L. Rush (D-IL)
John Shimkus (R-IL)
Cliff Stearns (R-FL)
Bart Stupak (D-MI)
John Sullivan (R-OK)
Lee Terry (R-NE)
Edolphus Towns (D-NY)
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Greg Walden (R-OR)
Edward Whitfield (R-KY)
Albert R. Wynn (D-MD)
To DumbDonkey:
Markey, Boucher, Eshoo and Inslee are all DEMOCRATS. They are the sponsors of the net neutrality amendment.
Stop trying to pawn this bullshit off as “bipartisan,” the way you tried to pawn off the REPUBLICAN Jack Abramoff scandal.
It saddens me to think that instead of uniting together to stop this potentially idiotic law, we have a relatively high percentage of dickwads coming in with moronic statements about Canada, freedom, anti-democrat, anti-republican, anti-liberal, anti-corparate, bllah blah blah.
Try to use a little intelligence like the other 80% of the posters in this group.
Keep the internet free…..
HR 5252 is the COPE Act in its ENTIRETY.
Net neutrality is only ONE PART–specifically, an amendment that was entirely sponsored by DEMOCRATS.
Get it through your thick goddamn kool-aid drinking skulls. You’re the bad guys.