What is NET NEUTRALITY and why should anyone care?

Why was that volunteer at Nancy Pelosi's office so concerned about Net Neutrality when she was showing me how to track my Congressman's voting record online last week?

If you are concerned that government is violating your right to privacy by illegally eavesdropping contact, Electronic Frontier Foundation. (EFF)

EFF Battles Government's Motion to Dismiss AT&T Surveillance Case
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) told a federal judge today that the government should not be allowed to use the "state secrets privilege" to preempt the class-action lawsuit against AT&T. EFF's suit accuses AT&T of collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in illegally spying on millions of Americans -- handing over customers' telephone and Internet records and communications without any legal authority. Department of Justice lawyers argued today that even if the NSA program is illegal, pursuing the case might expose "state secrets." However, EFF attorneys asked the judge to allow the case to proceed, considering the privilege in regards to specific evidence and situations instead of derailing the suit all together.
Full story, more on EFF's case against AT&T
June 23, 2006

Copyright Battle Threatens Right to Surf and Email Anonymously
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) argued Tuesday that a battle between Internet real estate services over copyrighted images should not threaten the rights of users to surf web pages and send emails anonymously. The case began when CoStar, a real estate information database, subpoenaed LoopNet, an online real estate forum, over copyrighted photographs that appeared on LoopNet's service. However, CoStar demanded not only the identification of the uploaders of the offending images, but also identification of "downloaders"—using a dangerously broad definition that includes both those who simply view the photos online and those who merely email links to the photos to others.
Full story, For the full amicus brief
June 20, 2006

EFF and Government Face Off Over 'State Secrets' in San Francisco Courtroom
On Friday, June 23, at 9:30 a.m., a federal judge in San Francisco will hear oral arguments on the U.S. government's motion to dismiss the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) class-action lawsuit against AT&T. EFF's suit accuses the telecom giant of collaborating with the National Security Agency (NSA) in illegal spying on millions of ordinary Americans. The government contends that even if the NSA program is illegal, the lawsuit should not go forward because it might expose state secrets.
Full story, more on EFF's case against AT&T
June 20, 2006

Appeals Court Corrects Dangerous Web Privacy Ruling
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has corrected a dangerous lower court ruling that threatened Internet privacy. In doing so, it preserved the privacy of password-protected websites as well as the right to read public sites. The decision followed the arguments made in an amicus brief filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "A real privacy disaster was averted today," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston, who authored the brief. "The court affirmed important legal protections for truly private websites, and also protected your right to read public content on the Internet without getting sued."
Full story, For the full decision in the case , EFF's Brief
June 1, 2006

Huge Win for Online Journalists' Source Protection
A California state appeals court ruled in favor of the Electronic Frontier Foundation's (EFF's) petition on behalf of three online journalists Friday, holding that the online journalists have the same right to protect the confidentiality of their sources as offline reporters do. "Today's decision is a victory for the rights of journalists, whether online or offline, and for the public at large," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl, who argued the case before the appeals court last month. "The court has upheld the strong protections for the free flow of information to the press, and from the press to the public."

Please give a donation to EFF to preserve our free internet. http://www.eff.org/

They both work tirelessly to preserve our Constitutional freedom. will you help?

Does that count?

None of them donated a dime and they all went to a secret detention camp for Christmas after some crooks Diebolded their way into office. funny isn't it? EFF has also taken action on electronic voting and election transparency.

Active Litigation
Diebold v. North Carolina Board of Elections
and
McCloy v. North Carolina Board of Elections

State court litigation involving Diebold's attempt to be exempted from state law requirements to escrow all of its system source code on the grounds that it couldn't do so. EFF intervened in the case on behalf of local election integrity advocate Joyce McCloy and convinced the Superior Court to dismiss Diebold's complaint. The Board of Elections nonetheless certified Diebold to sell equipment in the state, despite a statutory requirement to review "all source code" prior to certifying any vendor. EFF filed suit on behalf of McCloy, asking the Court to force the Board to perform its duties. The Court denied EFF's motion, finding for the Board an exemption for the Board from having to inspect "third party software" although such an exemption does not exist in the statute. Nevertheless, Diebold was forced to drop out of the process as it could not escrow all of its code for possible future review.

http://www.eff.org/Activism/E-voting/

:kick:

I'm leaving it with you guys. it's late on the East coast.

I saw some other actions they took against DIEBOLD last month. Was the gal at Pelosi's office off base on Net Nuetrality? I thought we were past that threat too.

The subject of the thread mentions net neutrality so I'll respond to that. I'm so depressed about the issue. First of all "net neutrality" is a horrible term for it. What would it mean to the average person? The averager person doesn't want "neutrality". "Internet freedom" is probably better.

Then the savetheinternet people use the phrase "save the internet". No one will pay attention to anything that is "save the ____". People have been conditioned to have reactionary... reaction to anything that fits the stereotype of save the whales.

Worst of all, in all the talks I've heard and the web and the emails, they don't tell you how "net neutrailty" is being threatened by what congress is voting on. They tell you what CEOs said. Then they tell you a bill is being voted on. But they don't tie the 2 together to tell you what about the bill is a threat to "net neutrality"!?!?!?! Then they want you to call your congressperson and tell them to vote some way in order to save "net neutrality", without knowing what you are talking about.

Again, I got an email saying to call my senators to ask them to support the "Dorgan-Snowe amendment". But they don't tell you what the amendment says!?!?!?!?!? WTF?

or answer my original question: What specifically is NET NEUTRALITY and WHY did the volunteer still consider it a threat?

And many people in America don't care about the USA Patriot Act but I, for one, know the Patriot Act is still a threat! WHAT IS NET NEUTRALITY AND WHY IS IT STILL A THREAT?

all in the timing of the post sometimes.

Google can send you to sites that are nothing but misinformation, especially on current political issues. Please share what you know about Net Neutrality Roland. You strike me as a smart person in your OPs.

it's about the telecoms wanting more $$$ by setting up a class-based pricing structure.

Want better bandwidth and better service, you're going to have to pay for it.

Want to keep your $30/mo. broadband? You're going to have to put up with slower speeds and poorer service.


Too bad the US can't be like South Korea and have great broadband countrywide.

iinto the YELLOW PAGES. The more space you need the more you pay. Approaching the internet in that manner would turn the world-wide-web into NOTHING BUT ADVERTISING! It's already pretty bad. I can remember a time when I searched a topic with Google and found mostly information, which was on sites sponsored by MAJOR UNIVERSITIES. Now, if it's not on Wikipedia, it's nowhere and that online dictionary is wrong on occasions. I STILL WONDER HOW IT'S A THREAT IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW!

An analogy for those who don't quite get it.

Imagine a town highway. In order to build a hotel along the highway, you've got to fork over money for a building permit, and you've got to pay a tax for each bed. All hotels are subject to the same permit fee, hotels with more beds pay more taxes.

What the telcos want to do is, if a hotel refuses to pay an additional fee on top of their taxes and permit, build obstacles to make it more difficult for customers to get into that hotel.

Sort of like a protection racket for the internet.

why do so few at DU care or know much about NET NEUTRALITY? I guess it might be ignorance. As someone said it's a big term. On the other hand; how can they dictate to THE WORLD (as in WWW) what will be on the web? It seems like they couldn't, even if they had laws about website content. Maybe that's why so few of us are willing to discuss the topic. As an impending threat to our ability to attain reliable information, it's perhaps just another non-issue, right?

The idea is that "net neutrality" prohibits descrimination based on the source of the content. If people who provide the backbone of the internet are allowed to discriminate against source, it could mean that they could prevent DU from being reachable to you, for example.

The idea is pretty clearly explained on the faq at savetheinternet.com. There is a good debate with factoids here:

http://www.politicstv.com/blog/?p=261

If you can watch the entire hour of debate, it's pretty interesting.

What savetheinternet.com does not explain clearly, is how exactly the amendments address the issue. Or what exactly in the legislation is the threat.

It appears to be the case that big telecom companies do intend to attack the neutrality of the internet. So there is a threat. And the idea of an amendment to legislation enforcing net neutrality makes sense. It's just the details that are unclear.

my question. BTW, you damn sure picked the WRONG NAME at DU. calling you "Ignoramus" is a worse misnomer than calling the USA Patriot Act "patriotic." thanks bunches for the info... I'm trying to learn more about the problem. I'm still amazed at how DU hardly mentions a topic that should be VERY near and dear to them. What about that act you mentioned earlier? How does it impact NET NEUTRALITY?

...and you're right it is very confusing in the articles that are written about it. Probably for a reason. I sent my Mom and article about it, and her initial response was, "huh?"

And this thing is very close to being passed...

"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."

That came from a note from Google to Google users on the topic...

http://www.google.com/help/netneutrality.html

They are starting to use the words "Internet Freedom." This link asks you to sign a petition for Internet Freedom.

You know if the Christian Coalition and the ACLU agree on a topic, then something is very wrong.

"You know if the Christian Coalition and the ACLU agree on a topic, then something is very wrong." do they REALLY agree or is the C.C. simply giving lip-service because the DeLay scandal has inhibited their ability to raise money?

Big Phone and Big Cable, and the politicians in their pockets.

on the planet.

As telcos consolidate and partner up with content providers, they want to make sure you visit, use, and purchase *their* content.

Especially now that it's been shown that people will pay for content, people are finding real ways to make money off of the net. Telcos, to my understanding, aren't making great gobs of money off of subscriptions, mainly because infrustructure costs are still fairly high.

The internet, if used properly, can be a tool for upheaval, both political and economic. That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your view. If the US government tried to control access to content, there would be an uproar. But if the telcos control content, that's just bizness.

The recording industry is a great example of the economic upheaval that the net can bring about. Royalties for songwriters was the public argument being used to shut down the likes of Napster, et al. But the truth was/is that unfiltered net was taking control of distribution from the labels, and with it, the ability to predetermine what gets to be a hit and what doesn't.

I told my wife that I felt "the world was on the verge of a fresh, NEW RENAISSANCE!" Just as the printing press fueled the Italian Renaissance, computers could easily fuel a neo-Renaissance. All the indicators were in place. During the sixties, there was a distinct resurgence of music, art and literature, with creative individuals pushing the envelope in their every endeavor. The "establishment" was highly critical of all these new approaches to creative endeavors for a very good reason: To a large degree, the aristocracy lost credibility and control over the masses in the 1400s, due in large to a rapidly growing middle or merchant class. While now unlikely because of widespread laziness and complacency, a neo-Renaissance is still possible but we'll have to fight for it, if humanity is to take the next big step of social evolution.

http://www.media-alliance.org/medianews/archives/002616.php

"“Net neutrality” may sound obscure and wonky. But it is crucial if the Internet is to remain a forum for us to talk to one another, to access web sites for information, to read, write and comment on blogs, to engage in political forums, or to donate money and learn about political candidates. For this reason, groups as diverse as Common Cause, Consumers Union, the Christian Coalition, Gun Owners of America and Media Alliance strongly support “net neutrality.”"

posts on the topic. I am indeed on entry level of a learning curve with this important issue and truly appreciate anything people are willing to offer. Thank you very much MJP.