Joe Biden sells us out on internet freedom.

Suppose the company which connects you to the internet, your ISP, doesn't like "Democratic Underground."

Should that company be allowed to slow down "Democratic Underground"?

I say no. I support Net Neutrality. No discrimination against websites.

But Joe Biden says that Congress should do nothing at this time, and maybe if there are big problems later caused by website discrimination, then take action.

============================================
From
http://news.com.com/Senate+ponders+policing+of+Net+neutrality+offenses/2100-1028_3-6083733.html?tag=nl

Others on the committee questioned the need for
"preemptive" action against a problem they're not
convinced exists. If the discrimination that Net
neutrality advocates fear does occur, such a public
outcry will develop that "the chairman will be
required to hold this meeting in this largest room in
the Capitol, and there will be lines wandering all the
way down to the White House," said Delaware Democrat
Joseph Biden.
============================================

The problem with Joe Biden's do-nothing-now approach is that the public will be in the dark. AT&T isn't going to announce "We've decided to make the following websites faster and the following websites slower."

We probably won't know it if "Democratic Underground" is slowed by an ISP. Those of us with that ISP will know DU is slow; we won't know why.

Please use this form to ask your Senators to defend internet freedom.

makes me feel good. He lacks vision - the vision needed to figure out what the citizens need and want.

Whether or not he knows what citizens need, he'll do what corporations want.

real progressives in primaries.

???

NT

Look at the telephone system, regulated to the hilt and its technology advances at the speed of Molasses.

Right now we don't have network neutrality and so far its worked pretty well. My Internet speeds have increased 100x what they were only 10 years ago.


Remember, all the discussion about net neutrality is about passing laws to guarantee it. Right now there is no such guarantee.

Im also concerned that regulating the internet to ensure N.N. will derail efforts like QOS which is necessary as we move from old world telephony to voip and similiar technologys.

Unfortunately, I've seen very little intelligent, informed discussion on N.N. Most all of it is near jerk reactions to the individuals party line, with no real discussion on the technical merits etc. (but what else is new).

When politics gets involved in technology, you get the results that you usually get with politics.

How much DO you enjoy shopping at Walmart.com? Well you will likely have no problem on their web sites,other big corporation's sites and likely sites popular amognst conservatives. Sure there will be a token effort to keep everyones's business, but there are many web sites that could virtually disappear without hurting the corporations' bottom line. Hmm, www.worldcantwait commondreams consortiumnews buzzflash ... WHO KNOWS? I find this very frightening. I would not know much about threats to our democracy without the internet.

right now.

Yet www.worldcantwait commondreams consortiumnews buzzflash are all still here.

Thats right, there is no law guaranteeing Network Neutrality now.

The discusion is about passing laws to make sure that N.N. doesnt go away.

Believe me, I understand what you are saying, but most of what I've read has been panic based on a poor understand of the Internet (not you, but about 99% of the folks discussing it)

All the talk has been about passing laws to guarantee what has not happened yet, will never happen. Sometimes thats a good idea, but I get nervous when politicans try to dictate technology.

All Im really saying is that folks should educate themselves about this, before panicing and running off and regulating something that is already working very well.

Im not opposed to N.N. per se., but I am nervous about opening up the regulation can of worms.

A year ago, the Supreme Court said Net Neutrality isn't the law.

Since then, ISPs have been waiting to see if Congress will do anything.

If Congress doesn't act soon, ISPs will start shaking down big websites and slowing down other websites.

The danger is if congress uses a heavy hand and ends up dictating things that shouldnt be dictated.

Done incorrectly, carriers won't be allowed to implement things such as QOS.

Unfortunately, I trust politicians to understand the technical issues of the Internet about as well I expect my tailor to perform a heart bypass.

Network Neutrality is essential. Im just saying tread carefully before we call in the sledgehammers to fix what requires a delicate touch.

all of their subscribers who choose a type of connection. They shouldn't be discrimnating and prioritizing traffic to some websites over others.

They should be free to implement things such as QOS to ensure that things such as voip and in the future video over IP (its only been done in a trivial manner now)

There are also things that MUST have priority over all over traffic...things such as BGP updates, and other traffic that actually makes the Internet run. If critical operational traffic must compete with web traffic, Internet stability will suffer.

Today, things such as BGP ARE given priority, always have been. If congress steps in without understand the issues, they could make quite a mess of things.

Do you disagree with any of this?

Internet Freedom Preservation Act (Introduced in Senate)

S 2917 IS

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 2917

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

May 19, 2006

Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. OBAMA, and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Internet Freedom Preservation Act'.

SEC. 2. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

Title I of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 151 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 12. INTERNET NEUTRALITY.

`(a) Duty of Broadband Service Providers- With respect to any broadband service offered to the public, each broadband service provider shall--

`(1) not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;

`(2) not prevent or obstruct a user from attaching or using any device to the network of such broadband service provider, only if such device does not physically damage or substantially degrade the use of such network by other subscribers;

`(3) provide and make available to each user information about such user's access to the Internet, and the speed, nature, and limitations of such user's broadband service;

`(4) enable any content, application, or service made available via the Internet to be offered, provided, or posted on a basis that--

`(A) is reasonable and nondiscriminatory, including with respect to quality of service, access, speed, and bandwidth;

`(B) is at least equivalent to the access, speed, quality of service, and bandwidth that such broadband service provider offers to affiliated content, applications, or services made available via the public Internet into the network of such broadband service provider; and

`(C) does not impose a charge on the basis of the type of content, applications, or services made available via the Internet into the network of such broadband service provider;

`(5) only prioritize content, applications, or services accessed by a user that is made available via the Internet within the network of such broadband service provider based on the type of content, applications, or services and the level of service purchased by the user, without charge for such prioritization; and

`(6) not install or utilize network features, functions, or capabilities that impede or hinder compliance with this section.

`(b) Certain Management and Business-Related Practices- Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a broadband service provider from engaging in any activity, provided that such activity is not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a), including--

`(1) protecting the security of a user's computer on the network of such broadband service provider, or managing such network in a manner that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service;

`(2) offering directly to each user broadband service that does not distinguish based on the source or ownership of content, application, or service, at different prices based on defined levels of bandwidth or the actual quantity of data flow over a user's connection;

`(3) offering consumer protection services (including parental controls for indecency or unwanted content, software for the prevention of unsolicited commercial electronic messages, or other similar capabilities), if each user is provided clear and accurate advance notice of the ability of such user to refuse or disable individually provided consumer protection capabilities;

`(4) handling breaches of the terms of service offered by such broadband service provider by a subscriber, provided that such terms of service are not inconsistent with the requirements of subsection (a); or

`(5) where otherwise required by law, to prevent any violation of Federal or State law.

`(c) Exception- Nothing in this section shall apply to any service regulated under title VI, regardless of the physical transmission facilities used to provide or transmit such service.

`(d) Stand-Alone Broadband Service- A broadband service provider shall not require a subscriber, as a condition on the purchase of any broadband service offered by such broadband service provider, to purchase any cable service, telecommunications service, or IP-enabled voice service.

`(e) Implementation- Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, the Commission shall prescribe rules to implement this section that--

`(1) permit any aggrieved person to file a complaint with the Commission concerning any violation of this section; and

`(2) establish enforcement and expedited adjudicatory review procedures consistent with the objectives of this section, including the resolution of any complaint described in paragraph (1) not later than 90 days after such complaint was filed, except for good cause shown.

`(f) Enforcement-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Commission shall enforce compliance with this section under title V, except that--

`(A) no forfeiture liability shall be determined under section 503(b) against any person unless such person receives the notice required by section 503(b)(3) or section 503(b)(4); and

`(B) the provisions of section 503(b)(5) shall not apply.

`(2) SPECIAL ORDERS- In addition to any other remedy provided under this Act, the Commission may issue any appropriate order, including an order directing a broadband service provider--

`(A) to pay damages to a complaining party for a violation of this section or the regulations hereunder; or

`(B) to enforce the provisions of this section.

`(g) Definitions- In this section, the following definitions shall apply:

`(1) AFFILIATED- The term `affiliated' includes--

`(A) a person that (directly or indirectly) owns or controls, is owned or controlled by, or is under common ownership or control with, another person; or

`(B) a person that has a contract or other arrangement with a content, applications, or service provider relating to access to or distribution of such content, applications, or service.

`(2) BROADBAND SERVICE- The term `broadband service' means a 2-way transmission that--

`(A) connects to the Internet regardless of the physical transmission facilities used; and

`(B) transmits information at an average rate of at least 200 kilobits per second in at least 1 direction.

`(3) BROADBAND SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `broadband service provider' means a person or entity that controls, operates, or resells and controls any facility used to provide broadband service to the public, whether provided for a fee or for free.

`(4) IP-ENABLED VOICE SERVICE- The term `IP-enabled voice service' means the provision of real-time 2-way voice communications offered to the public, or such classes of users as to be effectively available to the public, transmitted through customer premises equipment using TCP/IP protocol, or a successor protocol, for a fee (whether part of a bundle of services or separately) with interconnection capability such that service can originate traffic to, and terminate traffic from, the public switched telephone network

`(5) USER- The term `user' means any residential or business subscriber who, by way of a broadband service, takes and utilizes Internet services, whether provided for a fee, in exchange for an explicit benefit, or for free.'.

SEC. 3. REPORT ON DELIVERY OF CONTENT, APPLICATIONS, AND SERVICES.

Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Federal Communications Commission shall transmit a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives on the--

(1) ability of providers of content, applications, or services to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;

(2) ability of competing providers of transmission capability to transmit and send such information into and over broadband networks;

(3) price, terms, and conditions for transmitting and sending such information into and over broadband networks;

(4) number of entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks; and

(5) state of competition among those entities that transmit and send information into and over broadband networks.

Politics is being forced on the Internet, not the other way around. This entire issue involves GREED and CONTROL. It is telecom corporations asking for a license to extort money from users and it is the GOP wanting to be able to censor web sites using the power of the purse.

if you say so. I'll just leave it at that.

Could you post the Federal law that guarantees Network Neutrality right now?

Save the effort. There isnt any. They HAVE THAT LICENSE NOW.

All the discussion is about regulating the Internet to ensure that N.N. never goes away.

I am absolutely for N.N, however it needs to be done in a way that does not stifle innovation.

Regulation of the POTS system has resulted in us continuing to use 1960's technology to make analog phone calls.

I don't want to see that happen to the Internet.

I re-read my post and I realized that it conveyed a sense of certainty that I did not intend. I should have merely said that if the GOP is for it, I am against it! :)

Cheers!

No doubt. If the GOP is for it, its only good sense to beware.

:applaud:

do help them censor. I know Rumsfield has expressed concern. I also think they may use concerns on the few people who make unfortunate choices on sites like myspace to clamp down on all sites where folks can meet and exchange ideas. Myspace has many political groups and sites like Care2 also have petition links. Might be nice to inhibit or prohibit such sites. Teen agers are even quite political on the web, but maybe the government will decide they need to be protected. I don't know, but I worry.

for most of the existence of the web. It's also the principle the ISPs are following right now.

Let's say you get your phone service from one company, and your friend gets his phone service from another company.

Your friend's phone company can't demand money from you to connect your friend.

Similarly, if Google doesn't want to do business with AT&T, then AT&T shouldn't be able to threaten Google that it will stop its customers from accessing Google.

I do not disagree with anything you have posted.

The issue of scaling such controls is something that hasnt been discussed. Currently it would be VERY difficult for the carriers to regulate traffic on such a granular scale.

While they could certainly pick on the Googles and Itunes of the world, getting down to the individual subscriber level would be a nightmare to implement and would require massive equipment spending. Could it be done? Yea I think so but it wouldnt happen overnight, and IMO would create a massive backlash that would virtually guarantee that congress steps in.

Once again, Im just saying tread very carefully.

and regulated, it through its research arm, Bell Labs, earned an incredible number of patents. They alo contributed to basic science. Arno Penzias (not sure of spelling) was a BL employee when he did the work that got him a nobel prize related to the big bang theory. The 3 inventors of the transistor worked there as well. The technology improvements meant that the cost of telecommunications was one of the few things that constantly declined over decades.

In this case, a protected regulated monopoly had the resources to spend the large amount needed to support research including pure research. In the long run it paid off for both AT&T, the US and the world. Politicians who broke the company up to force competition led to less research and innovation. (Although there were then a plethera of rate plans and styles of telephones.

Sometimes simplistic economic truisms aren't true.

The 44 year old Bell Labs building in New Jersey is set to be demolished, to make way for commercial office space:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/realestate/commercial/14bell.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

the OP only needed the first five words as its header

ribs, black eyes, and emergency room visits do folks need from the likes of Biden, Tweety, McCain, and their ilk before they stand up, remove their heads from their nether regions and walk out?

You know, the one that took a whizz all over the Constitution, and probably would have made the late Bill Graham a multiple felon. (I had my beefs with Uncle Bobo, but he wasn't that bad)

Joe Biden? Fuckin' flatulating Ego who never shuts up.

more about the rights of the people if Joe Biden retired.

But he seems like someone who will want to stay in the Senate until he's 99.

if you don't support Net Neutrality, you will NOT be the Democratic nominee for president come 2008.

We should be marching on Congress over this.

TPM is doing a great job on this but still list Biden as undecided
Here's their list. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/net-neutrality.php


Doesn't Biden know that even Lieberman supports net neutrality?

Maybe they think he's undecided, in spite of that quote above which I sent them.

Or maybe they haven't gotten around to updating since I sent that several hours ago.

That's okay, I like my fascism luke warm anyway.

it's Credit Card Joe . . .

but what's REALLY unfortunate is that there are so many others in the Senate and the House (both Republican and Democrat) just like him . . . these days, Congress is just an extension of the corporate oligarchy that's leading this country (and the planet) to oblivion . . .

I'm not alone! Dang, time for a Twain quote;

"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But I repeat myself."
-Twain

The exceptions to that are real heroes of mine. They are risking much for the sake of our democracy. We are living in history. Our leaders damn well better turn the correct direction at this turning point.

... not if I have anything to say about it, at any rate....

the New Hampshire primaries.

who answered the phone was nice to me.

The staffer said they're getting a lot of calls about Net Neutrality.

Let's keep calling Senators' offices on Monday morning.

It's a non-winner for any politician to be for fucking up some web sites over others...

NT

I dont think theres a need for this at this point in time and I much prefer a hands off aproach. If your ISP starts slowing sites you may not know But I sure as hell will know if mine does and I guarentee you theres millions of geeks out there like me that will too.

It wont be long before people are aware of it going on if and when it ever happens. And the outcry as Joe said will be loud.

The sky isnt falling no matter how much you dislike Joe.

by giving them priority, and consequently making other websites slower?

He won't make it past Iowa folks.

This guy has shown his ass too many times.

I was listening to him talk about politics and religion and HIS party. He said he was talking w/ another dem and telling him about his mother or something. He went on to say that she said the rosary and that the other dem said, "Isn't that quaint." Then he got pretty upset and said that's what's wrong with the Democratic Party, they don't respect religion.

I about shit myself. One guy makes a comment that's not politically correct enough for him, and he label's the whole party. I can only imagine that the whole GOP and Neocon party was smiling ear to ear when he said that.

Joe, not everyone is Catholic and the guy didn't attack your religion. He quite frankly shared his candid thoughts. Sounds like he was condisending and should have just nodded his head or something, but you're skin is pretty damn thin if it impressed enough upon you to make you attack your own party.

THAT'S what's wrong with the Democratic Party, they're TOO DAMN QUICK to attack their own and side with the political manipulations of the Neocons.

Do you REALLY think the cons are more religious?

HELL NO!

They can't even list all ten commandments ... http://gorillamask.net/colbert10c.shtml

Guys like Biden only play into their game. What's their game? To USE religion as a tool to meet their politicals ends. That's it ... it's THAT SIMPLE!

While Biden knows that, he turns around and lays the smack down on his own party by labeling them as elitists http://www.safesearching.com/billmaher/transcripts/t_hbo_realtime_040706.htm

Just looked it up ... his little quaint quote was from the April 7 Bill Mauer show.

"My mother, God love her, very smart woman. Eighty-nine years old. Lives with me. Good health. My mother says a rosary every Sunday at Mass when we go to Mass, for her deceased brother Ambrose, who died in New Guinea, and the body was never recovered. I said to one of my senior – one of my colleagues who is a very sophisticated guy, when we got in an argument – I said, “Okay, Charlie, this is what my mother…what do you think of that?” And he looked at me and said, “I think that’s quaint.” And I said, “Were you not – were we not senators, I’d rip your goddamn Adam’s apple out, because who the hell are you to look at my mother and say it’s ‘quaint’?” We have too many elites in our party who look down their nose on people of faith. The people of faith don’t want us to share their view. They just want to know we respect them. We respect them. That’s the big problem with my party."

It's not a problem w/ your party ... the problem on that occasion was a guy who should have shown more tact, but really Joe, why the hell did you toss that story into your colleagues face when you were in an arguement w/ him?

Again, Joe, why did you toss the story of your Mom into the mix while you were in an arguement w/ one of your dem colleagues?????????

Sounds like a stunt a con would pull! Something to make someone feel little.

In fact, it sounds like you took a VERY personal situation w/ your Mom who is 89 years old, and USED it in an arguement w/ your dem collegue.

What a dismal fuck.

Then you turn the tables and make him into the asshole. He shouldn't have bitten on the bait you tossed out there. Whether religious bait is tossed out by a con or a DINO like Biden, it's low ... but untactful fodder like the "quaint" remark only gives people like Biden something to chew on.

Now he USES it to brand his entire party.

BIDEN WHY NOT JOIN THE OTHER EAST COAST JOE AND GO INDEPENDENT? Our party doesn't need assholes like you using religion as a tool while telling people cons shouldn't use it as a tool. In the end, you're just a TOOL!

Another thing Joe ... get this up your craw ... we're ALL people of faith. Just all of us don't practice the same religion, and many no religion at all, that doesn't mean those people don't have faith.

Your faith isn't your religion. Hate to break that to you, but it's a fact. There are nearly 300 million people in the United States, and that's nearly 300 million different faiths.

No two people have the same faith. Even an elite group of people who grew up in the same church, same parish, same age, etc., etc. ... give them all a 500 question test on their "faith." Guess what? They will not answer the same.

Your faith is your own.

People of faith Joe?

Some people may have faith in themselves, in their muscles, in their brains, in the day-to-day good deeds THEY do, but maybe they don't believe in a deity who impregnanted a virgin and had his "son" die for our "sins."

What sins? What you say is a sin? What the Catholic church says is a sin? What about the Church's sins? Ever heard of the inquision?

Fuck you Biden!!!!!!!!

People of faith ... like the faith of those who blow themselves up in the name of God! Some pretty fucked up faith there. And their "faith" to them is as valid as your's.

Biden is not a dem, he's just another fucking DINO Christian Reich fuck trying to take the con. Not on my watch. Not through Iowa ... and if the rest of Dems in the rest of the states have their heads of of their ass, then he won't get past them either.

As for Biden selling us out on Internet Freedom, he's just stalling so he doesn't post a vote in support of an unregulated Internet because Christians might interpret that as a vote for porn. Idiot fucking Biden.

Thoughts?

and I was disgusted at how he attaced Democrats for supposedly looking down on the religious without naming names.

If he has a problem with someone's attitude towards the religius, let Biden name that person, who may have words of his own for Biden.

It was slimy of Biden to attack without naming names, to prevent anyone from being able to respond.