This very important video (3min 59sec) is about Internet freedom. "Network Neutrality" -- the First Amendment of the Internet -- ensures that the public can view the smallest blog just as easily as the largest corporate Web site by preventing Internet companies like AT&T from rigging the playing field for only the highest-paying sites.
But Internet providers like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending millions of dollars lobbying Congress to gut Net Neutrality. If Congress doesn't take action now to implement meaningful Net Neutrality provisions, the future of the Internet is at risk.
Network Neutrality — or "Net Neutrality" for short — is the guiding principle that preserves the free and open Internet.
Net Neutrality ensures that all users can access the content or run the applications and devices of their choice. With Net Neutrality, the network's only job is to move data — not choose which data to privilege with higher quality service. Net Neutrality prevents the companies that control the wires from discriminating against content based on its source or ownership.
Net Neutrality is the reason why the Internet has driven economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. It's why the Internet has become an unrivaled environment for open communications, civic involvement and free speech.
Who wants to get rid of Net Neutrality?
The nation's largest telephone and cable companies — including AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner — want to be Internet gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go fast or slow and which won't load at all.
They want to tax content providers to guarantee speedy delivery of their data. They want to discriminate in favor of their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video — while slowing down or blocking their competitors.
These companies have a new vision for the Internet. Instead of an even playing field, they want to reserve express lanes for their own content and services — or those from big corporations that can afford the steep tolls — and leave the rest of us on a winding dirt road.
Won't more regulations harm the free Internet? Shouldn't we just let the market decide?
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.
Either we make rules that ensure an even playing field for everyone, or we have rules that hold the Internet captive to the whims of a few big companies. The Internet has thrived because revolutionary ideas like blogs, Wikipedia or Google could start on a shoestring and attract huge audiences. Without Net Neutrality, the pipeline owners will choose the winners and losers on the Web.
The cable and telephone companies already dominate 98 percent of the broadband access market. And when the network owners start abusing their control of the pipes, there will be nowhere else for consumers to turn.
Members
of the House on Wednesday pressed FCC Chairman Kevin Martin to take a
stronger position in support of Net Neutrality, calling it
“indispensable policy for the future of the
Internet.”
Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee Chairman
Rep. Ed Markey
(D-Mass.) promised that this would be just one among many hearings
focused on the Net Neutrality issue.
Markey, who authored a pro-Net Neutrality bill in 2006,
has pledged to protect
Net Neutrality in the 110th Congress.
Over the course of Wednesday’s often
contentious hearing,
representatives grilled the FCC chairman on a range of issues
– from
caps on cable ownership to an overhaul of the Universal Service Fund
–
but they frequently returned to the issue of Net Neutrality as
fundamentally important to the progress of the Internet.
Previously:
Congress is now considering a major overhaul of the Telecommunications Act. The telephone and cable companies are filling up congressional campaign coffers and hiring high-priced lobbyists. They've set up "Astroturf" groups like "Hands Off the Internet" to confuse the issue and give the appearance of grassroots support.
On June 8, the House of Representatives passed the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act of 2006," or COPE Act (H.R. 5252) -- a bill that offers no meaningful protections for Net Neutrality. An amendment offered by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), which would have instituted real Net Neutrality requirements, was defeated by intense industry lobbying.
It now falls to the Senate to save the free and open Internet. Fortunately, Sens. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) have introduced a bipartisan measure, the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2006" (S. 2917), that would provide meaningful protection for Net Neutrality.
On June 28, the Snowe-Dorgan bill was introduced as an amendment to Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-Alaska) major rewrite of the Telecom Act (S.2686) [now HR.5252]. The committee split down the middle on the measure, casting a tie vote of 11-11.
Though meaningful Net Neutrality protections were not added to Stevens' bill, the fight for Internet freedom is gaining serious momentum as the bill moves toward the full Senate later this year. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has threatened to place a "hold" on the entire legislation unless it reinstates Net Neutrality and prevents discrimination on the Internet.
Heading into August recess, the Senate Commerce Committee reclassified the Stevens bill as the "Advanced Telecommunications and Opportunities Reform Act" (HR.5252) to speed it to conference committee should it pass.
Call Congress today: No senator can in good conscience vote against Internet freedom and with the telecom cartel.
The
Senator - Party
& State - Phone - Stance on Net Neutrality
Akaka, Daniel K. (D-HI) 202-224-6361 For
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) 202-224-4944 Unknown
Allard, Wayne (R-CO) 202-224-5941 Unknown
Allen, George (R-VA) 202-224-4024 Against
Baucus, Max (D-MT) 202-224-2651 Unknown
Bayh, Evan (D-IN) 202-224-5623 For
Bennett, Robert F.(R-UT) 202-224-5444 Unknown
Biden, Joseph R. (D-DE) 202-224-5042 For
Bingaman, Jeff (D-NM) 202-224-5521 Unknown
Bond, Chris S. (R-MO) 202-224-5721 Unknown
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) 202-224-3553 For
Brownback, Sam (R-KS) 202-224-6521 Against
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) 202-224-4343 Unknown
Burns, Conrad R. (R-MT) 202-224-2644 Against
Burr, Richard (R-NC) 202 224-3154 Unknown
Byrd, Robert C. (D-WV) 202-224-3954 Unknown
Cantwell, Maria (D-WA) 202-224-3441 For
Carper, Thomas (D-DE) 202-224-2441 Unknown
Chafee, Lincoln D.(R-RI)202-224-2921 Unknown
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) 202-224-3521 Unknown
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) 202-224-4451 For
Coburn, Tom (R-OK) 202 224-5754 Unknown
Cochran, Thad (R-MS) 202-224-5054 Unknown
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) 202-224-5641 Unknown
Collins, Susan (R-ME) 202-224-2523 Unknown
Conrad, Kent (D-ND) 202-224-2043 Unknown
Cornyn, John (R-TX) 202-224-2934 Unknown
Craig, Larry E. (R-ID) 202-224-2752 Against
Crapo, Mike (R-ID) 202-224-6142 Unknown
Dayton, Mark (D-MN) 202-224-3244 Waffling
DeMint, Jim (R-SC) 202 224-6121 Against
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) 202-224-2315 Unknown
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) 202-224-2823 For
Dole, Elizabeth (R-NC) 202-224-6342 Unknown
Domenici,Pete V. (R-NM) 202-224-6621 Unknown
Dorgan, Byron L. (D-ND) 202-224-2551 For
Durbin,Richard J. (D-IL)202-224-2152 Unknown
Ensign, John (R-NV) 202-224-6244 Against
Enzi, Michael (R-WY) 202-224-3424 Unknown
Feingold,Russell D.(D-WI)202-224-5323 For
Feinstein, Dianne (D-CA)202-224-3841 For
Frist, William H. (R-TN)202-224-3344 Unknown
Graham, Lindsey (R-SC) 202-224-5972 Unknown
Grassley, Charles E.(R-IA)202-224-3744 Unknown
Gregg, Judd (R-NH) 202-224-3324 Unknown
Hagel, Chuck (R-NE) 202-224-4224 Unknown
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) 202-224-3254 Unknown
Hatch, Orrin G. (R-UT) 202-224-5251 Unknown
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R-TX)202-224-5922Against
Inhofe, James M. (R-OK) 202-224-4721 Unknown
Inouye, Daniel K. (D-HI)202-224-3934 For
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) 202 224-3643 Unknown
Jeffords, James M. (I-VT)202-224-5141 Unknown
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) 202-224-5842 Unknown
Kennedy, Edward M. (D-MA)202-224-4543 Unknown
Kerry, John F. (D-MA) 202-224-2742 For
Kohl, Herb (D-WI) 202-224-5653 Unknown
Kyl, Jon (R-AZ) 202-224-4521 Unknown
Landrieu, Mary (D-LA) 202-224-5824 Unknown
Lautenberg, Frank (D-NJ)202-224-3224 For
Leahy, Patrick J. (D-VT)202-224-4242 For
Levin, Carl (D-MI) 202-224-6221 Unknown
Lieberman, Joesph I. (D-CT)202-224-4041 Waffling
Lincoln, Lambert(D-AR) 202-224-4843 Unknown
Lott, Trent (R-MS) 202-224-6253 Against
Lugar, Richard G. (R-IN)202-224-4814 Unknown
Martinez, Mel (R-FL) 202 224-3041 Unknown
McCain, John (R-AZ) 202-224-2235 Against
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) 202-224-2541 Unknown
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) 202-224-4744 Unknown
Mikulski, Barbara A. (D-MD)202-224-4654 Waffling
Murkowski, Lisa (R-AK) 202-224-6665 Unknown
Murray, Patty (D-WA) 202-224-2621 Unknown
Nelson, Bill (D-FL) 202-224-5274 For
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) 202-224-6551 For
Obama, Barack (D-IL) 202 224-2854 For
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) 202-224-2353 For
Reed, Jack (D-RI) 202-224-4642 Unknown
Reid, Harry (D-NV) 202-224-3542 For
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) 202-224-4774 Unknown
Rockefeller,John D.(D-WV)202-224-6472 For
Salazar, Ken (D-CO) 202 224-5852 Unknown
Santorum, Rick (R-PA) 202-224-6324 Unknown
Sarbanes, Paul S. (D-MD)202-224-4524 Unknown
Schumer, Charles (D-NY) 202-224-6542 Unknown
Sessions, Jeff (R-AL) 202-224-4124 Unknown
Shelby, Richard C. (R-AL)202-224-5744 Unknown
Smith, Gordon (R-OR) 202-224-3753 Against
Snowe, Olympia (R-ME) 202-224-5344 For
Specter, Arlen (R-PA) 202-224-4254 Waffling
Stabenow, Debbie A. (D-MI)202-224-4822 Unknown
Stevens, Ted (R-AK) 202-224-3004 Against
Sununu, John (R-NH) 202-224-2841 Against
Talent, Jim (R-MO) 202-224-6154 Unknown
Thomas, Craig (R-WY) 202-224-6441 Against
Thune, John (R-SD) 202 224-2321 Unknown
Vitter, David (R-LA) 202 224-4623 Against
Voinovich, George (R-OH)202-224-3353 Unknown
Warner, John W. (R-VA) 202-224-2023 Unknown
Wyden, Ron (D-OR) 202-224-5244 For