omaryak's blog

They're only telling half the story

omaryak — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 04:25:55 -0400

In the fight to oppose Net Neutrality legislation, the telecom companies are trying to tell us that it's only big corporations that will pay the fees that telecom companies want to impose on the Internet. But that just isn't the case. Over at handsoff.org "blog" – I use the term loosely because comments aren't allowed on their posts – they've cited the switch of a USA Today columnist from being in favor of Net Neutrality to being against it.

Now, there are several things wrong with the reasoning of the columnist in making his switch, but the best way I can summarize it is in the title of the post. They're only thinking about it halfway. To illustrate my point, the quote I'd like to focus on is this:

"Think about it: Google owns Blogger. Do you think Blogger users are going to be deprived of bandwidth for lack of funds?"

Well, yes, I agree – let's think about it. The real question is: Do you think Blogger is going to absorb the extra cost of paying off the telecoms to preserve its bandwidth without passing on the cost to consumers? Right now Blogger is free and open to the public. Any increase in price of operating the service, and consumers will get hit with the difference. That means fewer people able to blog, fewer blogs, and fewer voices. See why Net Neutrality is so important now?

These are the people we're supposed to trust without Net Neutrality?

omaryak — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 01:27:05 -0400

According to the San Francisco chronicle, AT&T is protecting itself from future legal action by claiming that consumers' personal data isn't theirs. It's claiming ownership of our personal data to "use to respond to legal requests," such as the NSA's surveillance program. If this is the kind of tortured logic they'll use to protect themselves from lawsuits, how can we trust them to regulate themselves when it comes to Net Neutrality? Read the full article here.

Save the Internet – support Net Neutrality

omaryak — Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:05:02 -0400

Latest News: Though the bipartisan Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act passed the House Judiciary Committee, the House Rules Committee ruled against letting it be considered as an emendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE) Act, a bill which specifically prohibits the FCC from enforcing Net Neutrality principles. But the fight is not over. A bill in the Senate proposed by Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) is waiting in the wings, and the conditions for Net Neutrality are more favorable in the Senate. Write your Senator and tell them to support S-2917, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act.

This battle is beyond partisanship; it's about the future of the Internet. The issue of Net Neutrality is so important that the Christian Coalition and MoveOn.org have announced a new ad to appear in the New York Times emphasizing the non-partisan nature of the issue. Have you written your legislators yet? Take a minute to visit our action center, or visit savetheinternet.com and sign the petition.

Net Neutrality: eBay joins the fight

omaryak — Fri, 2 Jun 2006 19:12:27 -0400

Do you buy or sell things on eBay? If you do, you might want to join eBay's Government Relations at ebaymainstreet.com. From their Web site:

eBay supports Net Neutrality legislation that will prohibit Network Operators from replacing the robust open Internet with "Pay to Play" private networks that will force out and discriminate against content and service providers that refuse to pay new tolls.

Consumers, non-profits and businesses already pay for access to the Internet. Network operators should not be permitted to "double dip" by charging consumers twice for high-speed Internet access.

If you agree, go to ebaymainstreet.com and sign up using your eBay login. The drive for Net Neutrality is gaining momentum, and you can be a part of it.

The 'Web toll': a primer on Net Neutrality

omaryak — Tue, 30 May 2006 23:04:55 -0400

For those of you still not quite sure what Net Neutrality means, here's an article from Popular Science I've found that puts it in the simplest terms yet: a Web toll. If telecom companies have their way, the Internet will go from being an Interstate freeway to a private tollway, where telecom companies decide the rules. I've touched on some of these topics before, but here are two points from the article that especially stand out:

Without Net Neutrality, all of us will pay more. The folks at handsoff.org would like you to think that it's "big corporations" like Yahoo! and Google that would be paying the price, but these prices will get passed on to us either in the form of charges for faster content, or higher prices across the board if Web advertising starts costing more.

read more

Why 'Hands Off' is off the mark

omaryak — Wed, 24 May 2006 00:35:04 -0400

In the debate over Net Neutrality, telecom companies have mounted their response at a site called Hands off the Internet, which alleges that the Internet has seen amazing growth without Congressional intervention.

While this is true, it is a classic redirect – yes, the Internet has seen amazing growth, and yes, it has up until now been largely free of government regulation. But what telecom companies like the newly merged AT&T and SBC, Verizon and BellSouth are trying to do (the same companies who handed over information about our phone calls to government authorities after 9/11) is change the fundamental nature of the Internet.

Up until now the Internet has been regulation-free, but it has also been free of the intervention of telecom companies, an even playing field for individuals and corporations alike. The telecom companies, seeking ever-greater profits after ever-bigger mergers, want to charge people and companies for high-bandwidth content. Sites like YouTube and Google Video wouldn't be possible – or at least free – if telecom companies had their way.