Internet aids democratic participation

==Background==
* Also known as Network Neutrality or Net Neutrality
Telephone and cable companies in control of Internet access are trying to use their enormous political muscle to dramatically change the Internet. It might be hard to believe, but lawmakers in Washington are seriously debating whether consumers should be free to use the Internet as they want in the future.
==Details==
Bill number - Lead sponsor(s) - What It Proposes Status
S.2360 - Wyden (D) - No two-tier Internet Still in Senate committee 
S.2917 - Snowe (R) and Dorgan (D) - No two-tier Internet Just introduced 
HR5417 - Sensenbrenner (R) and Conyers (D) - Antitrust extended to Net neutrality Awaiting House floor vote 
HR5273 - Markey (D) - No two-tier Internet Still in House committee.
Note: Republicans have defeated similar language twice as an amendment to a telecommunications bill.
HR5252 - Barton (R) and Rush (D) - FCC can police complaints Awaiting House floor vote 
S.2686 - Stevens (R) and Inouye (D) - FCC will do a study Senate committee vote expected in June 
The concept of Net neutrality, which generally means that all Internet sites must be treated equally, has drawn a list of high-profile backers. It's also led to a political rift between big Internet companies such as Google and Yahoo that back it -- and telecom companies that argue federal legislation will curb their ability to manage their own networks. 
On May 25, one House of Representatives panel voted in favor of formal Net neutrality regulations bitterly opposed by AT&T, Verizon Communications and other broadband providers -- while another House panel rejected such regulations on April 5. 
For their part, network operators from the telephone and cable industries, now allied with some of the nation's largest hardware makers, have said repeatedly that they have no intention of blocking, degrading or impairing content. They say they're protecting their right to manage their networks as they see fit, which could mean charging extra to heavy bandwidth users, such as video providers, that expect to have their content shuttled at priority speeds. 
==Links Elsewhere==
* Strengthening the Open Internet for a Safer World - March 11, 2005
:The Infrastructure of Democracy, From Global Voices
====
* eBay urges Net Neutrality in first ever blast in June, 2006 eBay has been active in a pro-Net neutrality coalition for years.
* American Electronics Association, or AEA, cautiously embraced Net neutrality. 
==Details==
===Proposed law changes would tangle the Web===
=====Source: =====
* Baltimore Sun by Michael Socolow, May 9, 2006
:* Michael Socolow is an assistant professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. His e-mail is michael.socolow -at- umit -dot- maine -dot- edu.
Congress wants to change the Internet.
This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively
pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are
promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the
Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President
Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.
The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and
Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality."
Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it
enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the
most popular Web site.
Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have
publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into
separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will
be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the
slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does
nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.
The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits
while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from
fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net
neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for
you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and
which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all.
By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government
will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These
companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even
BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you
type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your
lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed.
It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure.
Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing
will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that
completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones -
would be counterproductive.)
You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering
directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web.
"Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It
loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link."
If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far
longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact
on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps
toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed
regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or
possibly striking - employees?
The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new
laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several
explanations for the silence.
The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support
in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has
been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and
Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to
preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of
Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly
outnumbered.
The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising
model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of
Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The
1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national
airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC.
Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of
communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our
telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by
physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political
process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history.
Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no
company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by
corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it
theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells
us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your
screen, it will be too late to complain.
===Imagine if AT&T and Verizon controlled everything you see and do online.===
In June, 2006, the US House of Representatives dealt a serious blow to
Internet freedom by passing a telecom bill stripped of protections for
net neutrality.*
Currently, our free and open Internet allows individuals and
organizations to speak truth to power -- and small businesses to
compete and flourish on a level playing field. However, big telecom
companies like AT&T and Verizon are currently spending tens of
millions of dollars to push legislation that would abandon the "First
Amendment of the Internet" -- a principle called network neutrality.
As the Internet grows, it's not surprising that the big corporations
want to seize control, discriminate against people with alternative
viewpoints, favor certain types of content, and set up tollbooths
wherever they can.
Without network neutrality, AT&T, Verizon and others will be free to
slow down or block emails and Web sites they don't like -- effectively
silencing the voices of their critics and of people who don't share
their politics. We can't let them get away with it.
Here are two things you can do to help save the Internet:
1. Tell Your Senators to Support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act
of 2006.
While the House of Representatives has just rolled over to big
corporations and passed a telecom "reform" bill with no protections
for net neutrality, our chances are much better in the Senate.
Senators Snowe and Dorgan have introduced S. 2197, the "Internet
Freedom Preservation Act of 2006," which restores key protections for
consumers. The bill prohibits preferential pricing for access tiers,
and has a meaningful enforcement mechanism to deter network
discrimination.
Click here to tell your Senators to support this important
legislation:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/enkU0NRAfY0Tcg0BHnB0ET
A broad and diverse grassroots coalition -- uniting groups ranging
from the Christian Coalition and Gun Owners of America to Working
Assets and Common Cause -- is working together to ensure Congress
preserves net neutrality. The Snowe-Dorgan legislation is our last,
best chance to put this common-sense principle into law -- so contact
your senators today in support of this important bill! Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/enkU0NRAfY0Tcg0BHnB0ET
2. Send a message to Big Telecom by switching to Working Assets
In addition to helping you raise your voice to Congress, Working
Assets has a unique role to play in the fight to save the Internet.
We're the only phone company participating in the Save the Internet
coalition. But we also make it easy for you to stick it to AT&T and
Verizon and help organize for Internet freedom with one simple act:
switch your mobile phone and long distance service from the bad guys
to Working Assets. Click here:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/enkU0NRAfY0Tcg0BHWc0Ed
The best way to make AT&T and Verizon pay the price for this attack on
our Internet is move your dollars to another company. So far, they say
recent scandals aren't causing them to lose customers. If you're
currently with AT&T, Cingular (AT&T's wireless arm) or Verizon, we can
help you send them a message and raise money for the fight to save the
Internet.
We're keeping a count of everyone who switches their mobile phone and
long distance service in support of net neutrality (or pledges to
switch their mobile phone when their contract is up.) And for every
phone number you switch in response to this email, Working Assets will
make a $50 donation to nonprofit groups organizing for Internet
freedom.
Click here to switch your wireless or long distance service -- or
pledge to do so once your current contract is up:
http://act.actforchange.com/cgi-bin7/DM/y/enkU0NRAfY0Tcg0BHWc0Ed
Michael Kieschnick
President
Working Assets
==Links==
===Web===
* http://www.weownthenet.org/ Great site with Flash and humor of monopoly