Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most. If the public doesn't speak up now, our elected officials will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign.

How does this threat to Internet freedom affect you?

• Google users—Another search engine could pay dominant Internet providers like AT&T to guarantee the competing search engine opens faster than Google on your computer.
• Innovators with the "next big idea"—Startups and entrepreneurs will be muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that pay Internet providers for dominant placing on the Web. The little guy will be left in the "slow lane" with inferior Internet service, unable to compete.
• Ipod listeners—A company like Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a higher-priced music service that it owned.
• Political groups—Political organizing could be slowed by a handful of dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to pay "protection money" for their websites and online features to work correctly.
• Nonprofits—A charity's website could open at snail-speed, and online contributions could grind to a halt, if nonprofits can't pay dominant Internet providers for access to "the fast lane" of Internet service.
• Online purchasers—Companies could pay Internet providers to guarantee their online sales process faster than competitors with lower prices—distorting your choice as a consumer.
• Small businesses and tele-commuters—When Internet companies like AT&T favor their own services, you won't be able to choose more affordable providers for online video, teleconferencing, Internet phone calls, and software that connects your home computer to your office.
• Parents and retirees—Your choices as a consumer could be controlled by your Internet provider, steering you to their preferred services for online banking, health care information, sending photos, planning vacations, etc.
• Bloggers—Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips—silencing citizen journalists and putting more power in the hands of a few corporate-owned media outlets.

The Coalition believes that the Internet is a crucial engine for economic growth and free speech. We are working together to urge Congress to preserve Network Neutrality, the First Amendment for the Internet that ensures that the Internet remains open to innovation and progress.

From its beginnings, the Internet has leveled the playing field for all comers. Everyday people can have their voices heard by thousands, even millions of people. The SavetheInternet.com Coalition -- representing millions of Americans from all walks of life -- is working together to ensure that Congress passes no telecommunications legislation without meaningful and enforceable Network Neutrality protections.

Blocking Innovation

The threat to an open internet isn't just speculation -- we've seen what happens when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. These companies, even, have said as much about their plans to discriminate online. According to the Washington Post:Such corporate control of the Web would reduce your choices and stifle the spread of innovative and independent ideas that we've come to expect online. It would throw the digital revolution into reverse. Internet gatekeepers are already discriminating against Web sites and services they don't like:

• In 2004, North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from using any rival Web-based phone service.
• In 2005, Canada's telephone giant Telus blocked customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to the Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor dispute.
• Shaw, a major Canadian cable, internet, and telephone service company, intentionally downgrades the "quality and reliability" of competing Internet-phone services that their customers might choose -- driving customers to their own phone services not through better services, but by rigging the marketplace.
• In April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all emails that mentioned www.dearaol.com -- an advocacy campaign opposing the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme.

This is just the beginning. Cable and telco giants want to eliminate the Internet's open road in favor of a tollway that protects their status quo while stifling new ideas and innovation. If they get their way, they'll shut down the free flow of information and dictate how you use the Internet.

You can help keep the internet free for all. Tell Congress that they can't hand over control of the Internet to AT&T and Verizon:

Call Congress about Internet Freedom
On April 26, a congressional committee caved to pressure from AT&T and Verizon and voted for a bill that would allow large telephone and cable companies to control what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

This betrayal sparked a public revolt. More than 700,000 people have sent protest letters to Congress. Thousands more are calling their elected represenatatives to demand that they take a stand for Internet freedom. Because of the intense heat, some members of Congress are switching from AT&T's side to ours. The House will vote soon on whether to preserve Internet freedom; a Senate vote will follow shortly after. Every elected member of Congress needs to take a stand on Internet freedom.
Click here to enter your zip code to call your Representative and Senators today.

Write a Letter to Your Local Paper
Large cable and telephone companies are planning to do away with Net Neutrality, the democratic standard that has made the Internet a revolutionary force for economic innovation and new ideas. Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are asking Congress to pass legislation that allows them to seize control of the Internet.

You can help stop this legislation by writing a letter to the editor of you local newspaper. When published, your letter will help raise this issue in your community and mobilize others to urge Washington to stand firm for Internet Freedom.

don't forget the Pres can veto it and if he doesn't then we know he is the AntiChrist

bush has never vetoed a bill and he doesn't plan on it.

Let's forgo the snarky, off-color remarks and stay focused on addressing the issue at hand. Several submissions have already been removed. Posts riddled with curse words and crude, sexual references are also not tolerated, if you want to voice your opinion make them without the vulgarities.

Man our government is becoming more like china's. chinese people don't even know what happened at Tiananmen Square and when you type that in china there's not one pic of the tankman or anything because china has deals with search engines to sensor information which would make people question their own government. Congress is such a bunch of goons, why don't they use their power for good? It sounds like a horribly idea to me and if it passes I think I'll just kill myself.

"Doodyhead" is vulgar?

Also, I'm not entirely sure I even buy this. I remember several years ago there was an article zooming around in emails about how the post office was going to start charging for every email sent because of some ridiculous claim of "loss of revenue" that they were getting from people sending emails rather than snail mail.

Which is ridiculous since the advent of online shopping and eBay, I'm sure they (along with UPS and other carriers) are making boatloads of money from shipped packages.

In other words, as far as I'm concerned, this is another internet hoax just like all the rest.

That's why I made a snarky comment about Bush's vetoing ability (why would he veto any bill since it takes a majority to pass the house and senate and Republicans are the majority anyway?) rather than say anything serious. Because then the flames start and I get accused of not caring for the First Amendment, or whatever amendment is under fire this time.

It's not that I don't care about the First Amendment (or whatever it is this time), it's that I don't care about stupid internet hoaxes.

And I wasn't being snarky about my comment that people will rise up when their pornography sites are inaccessible. I mean it. If this is true, and those companies can control content, then you betcha porn sites are at the TOP of the list. Whether or not you think porn should exist, it's an example of the scope of something the public wants and will not tolerate being without. First Amendment rights (or any amendment) gets hazy and people have a hard time coming up with the energy to care. But take away something they actively enjoy and makes their life better, and people will scream.

If someone said some vague company was doing something vaguely vague that could vaguely affect some vague aspect of my life, I probably wouldn't even notice. But if the effect was closer to home, say my ability to check books out of the library, a shortage of Dr. Pepper, loss of my favorite TV channels, or not being able to access comic sites on my computer, THEN I would be mad.

And that's why I made the porn comment. People aren't going to care if it doesn't directly affect them. Once it does, then they'll create one heck of a ruckus.

Also, I just checked Snopes.com and they claim this is true. However, there is also the following to consider:

"Currently, federal regulations do not either explicitly allow or prohibit telecommunications companies from charging additional fees such as the ones proposed. Debate is ongoing in Congress over whether or not to enact legislation that would protect network neutrality, and how much authority federal regulators should be given to enforce neutrality principles."

It could have been already going on for all we know. Maybe that's why UM forums load agonizingly slow and I'm constantly getting "Cannot find server" even though every other site whips by lightning-fast.

I still maintain this is garbage. But if you really want to get people to fight against it, talk to them on their level. Tell them specifically what it means to the single person rather than vagueness. I'd be more ready to fight if someone told me it meant Stripcreator.com or John-Betts.com would load slower than dialup. Heck, I'd get mad if you just told me it meant anything would load slower than dial-up since I already pay for the fastest DSL available.

Also, thank you politicians for the 1996 Telecommunications Act which put companies in the position to even be able to think about this. Seriously, thanks a lot. And the fact that hardly any politician stood up against it shows just what kind of people we have making policy. If any proof was needed that politicians are looking out for the interests of companies rather than the people, that act is it.

There is a vast difference in what you've just contributed versus what was posted originally. The only responses your first comment inspired was further irrelevent nonsense, which tends to quickly derail the topic being discussed. Whether it was intentional or not, I think you'll agree that when you take a bit more time to flesh out your viewpoint with a more detailed accounting of your position in regards to the subject, corresponding replies will likely follow your example. And you were correct, there wasn't anything snarky about your comment concerning pornography, your point was valid.

MM

the govt. will enevtually label any conspiracy sites as "spam", and rid of them.

tsk tsk. this will never stop us!!!!!!

Even if the bill is passed ( and is real), competition would keep things in balance.

It's going to be a tough fight.

The Internet is going through the same curve as radio - during the early days of radio, there was no legislation, and people could broadcast pretty much what they chose to.

These days, you need a broadcast license, with fixed wavelength addresses, allocated by the Government.

The Internet will only remain free and neutral as long as it isn't a threat to the giant Telco's. Unfortunately, we've already crossed the line - VOIP and WIMAX combined have lowered the cost of entry into the Telco market massively, to the point that they have to take action to survive.

We live in interesting times, indeed. Fingers crossed that the collective world governments see sense this time and maintain net neutrality.

^That happened with the radio because there are only so many radio frequencies. If every single person was broadcasting themselves all of the frequencies would get scrambled and the radio would become useless.

That's true. It's why we use DNS Servers today, to resolve where a website is.

I guess I missed the main point - the radio started off as a free-for-all and then became more and more commercialised and subject to Government regulations.

Looks like we lost the first round. Brace yourself for the two-tier internet...

this is untrue.

firstly because it goes against antitrust laws

secondly, it would make the large, 'selectively elitist' companies vulnerable to a smallcap company advertising equality for all websites.

Evil comcast! Slower itunes! We must take action agains the threat!

Too late, looks like the U.S. is taking tips from China.
------------------------------
Defeat for Net Neutrality Backers
US politicians have rejected attempts to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in legislation.
By Tom Lasseter

Some fear the decision will mean net providers start deciding on behalf of customers which websites and services they can visit and use.

The vote is a defeat for Google, eBay and Amazon which wanted the net neutrality principle protected by law.

All three mounted vigorous lobbying campaigns prior to the vote in the House of Representatives.

Tier fear

The rejection of the principle of net neutrality came during a debate on the wide-ranging Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (Cope Act).

Among other things, this aims to make it easier for telecoms firms to offer video services around America by replacing 30,000 local franchise boards with a national system overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Representative Fred Upton, head of the House telecommunications subcommittee, said competition could mean people save $30 to $40 each month on their net access fees.

An amendment to the Act tried to add clauses that would demand net service firms treat equally all the data passing through their cables.

The amendment was thought to be needed after the FCC ripped up its rules that guaranteed net neutrality.

During the debate House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, said that without the amendment "telecommunications and cable companies will be able to create toll lanes on the information superhighway".

"This strikes at the heart of the free and equal nature of the internet," she added.

Critics of the amendment said it would bring in unnecessary government regulation.

Prior to the vote net firms worried about the effect of the amendment on their business lobbied hard in favour of the amendment. They fear their sites will become hard to reach or that they will be forced to pay to guarantee that they can get through to web users.

Meg Whitman, eBay chief executive, e-mailed more than one million members of the auction site asking them to back the idea of net neutrality. Google boss Eric Schmidt called on staff at the search giant to support the idea, and film stars such as Alyssa Milano also backed the amendment.

The ending of net neutrality rules also spurred the creation of activism sites such as Save The Internet and Its Our Net.

Speaking at a conference in late May, web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee warned that the net faced entering a "dark period" if access suppliers were allowed to choose which traffic to prioritise.

The amendment was defeated by 269 votes to 152 and the Cope Act was passed by 321-101 votes.

The debate over the issue now moves to the US Senate where the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee will vote on its version of the act in late June. The debate in that chamber is also likely to centre on issues of net neutrality.

Source
------------------------------
*May Article*
Web inventor warns of 'dark' net
By Jonathan Fildes

The web should remain neutral and resist attempts to fragment it into different services, web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee has said.

Recent attempts in the US to try to charge for different levels of online access web were not "part of the internet model," he said in Edinburgh.

He warned that if the US decided to go ahead with a two-tier internet, the network would enter "a dark period".

Sir Tim was speaking at the start of a conference on the future of the web.

"What's very important from my point of view is that there is one web," he said.

"Anyone that tries to chop it into two will find that their piece looks very boring."

An equal net

The British scientist developed the web in 1989 as an academic tool to allow scientists to share data. Since then it has exploded into every area of life.

However, as it has grown, there have been increasingly diverse opinions on how it should evolve.

The World Wide Web Consortium, of which Sir Tim is the director, believes in an open model.

This is based on the concept of network neutrality, where everyone has the same level of access to the web and that all data moving around the web is treated equally.

This view is backed by companies like Microsoft and Google, who have called for legislation to be introduced to guarantee net neutrality.

The first steps towards this were taken last week when members of the US House of Representatives introduced a net neutrality bill.

Pay Model

But telecoms companies in the US do not agree. They would like to implement a two-tier system, where data from companies or institutions that can pay are given priority over those that cannot.

This has particularly become an issue with the transmission of TV shows over the internet, with some broadband providers wanting to charge content providers to carry the data.

The internet community believes this threatens the open model of the internet as broadband providers will become gatekeepers to the web's content.

Providers that can pay will be able to get a commercial advantage over those that cannot.

There is a fear that institutions like universities and charities would also suffer.

The web community is also worried that any charges would be passed on to the consumer.

Optimism

Sir Tim said this was "not the internet model". The "right" model, as exists at the moment, was that any content provider could pay for a connection to the internet and could then put any content on to the web with no discrimination.

Speaking to reporters in Edinburgh at the WWW2006 conference, he argued this was where the great benefit of the internet lay.

"You get this tremendous serendipity where I can search the internet and come across a site that I did not set out to look for," he said.

A two-tier system would mean that people would only have full access to those portions of the internet that they paid for and that some companies would be given priority over others.

But Sir Tim was optimistic that the internet would resist attempts to fragment.

"I think it is one and will remain as one," he said.

The WWW2006 conference will run until Friday at the International Conference Centre in Edinburgh.

Source

This is the part that really bothers me. Anything involving the FCC overseeing something is never a good thing.

www.123456789000000000.com
there
everyone on the planet can have a website now.
just mix around the numbers.
Im such a genius.
no need to thank me.

Note-im responding to all the people talking about us running out of space the same way we did with the radio. We can always build more servers. And yeah this is pretty screwed up, But I tend to agree with everyone else. This doesnt look like its real.

this threat is as real as it gets folks everyone is talking about it This bill passes we have no more freedom left

Letters- after anthrax Gov goes though each and every letter

Telephones- being tapped as we speak

Internet- This is the final straw, our last stand, 50/50, we win this or lose everything

This is the main flaw of Democracy, If politican hate something they have the power to stop it and the citizens cannot stop it unless we stop the Gov completely

We have just as much freedom as weve had all along.
The constitutions been butchered dude.
Were free as long as they say so.
Thats it.
Nothing more.
Once the internets gone, Theres no where for the dissident turn. Local groups cant be formed for FBI getting all up in peoples faces. Once this happenes well, I guess the "land of the free" is going to see either complete apathy-Or mass action the likes of wich its never seen.

So like a revolution

Lets face it people even if Bush wasn't behind 9/11 he's using it to do whatever he wants

like a famous expression says

"Tell an American that your tapping his phones for no good cause and he'll flip,
Tell an American that your tapping his phones for terrorists and he will cower in a corner"

-Anonymous

Revolution is a long way away. The only way there will be a normal revolution(guns guerillas that stuff) will be if the government really does go to far. And theyve already got so many people brainwashed that the plausibility of turning our own armed services on us isnt so insane. Another terrorist attack, But this time by whatever political faction is opposed to whoevers in control-Then we go after them damn terorist sons a b*****s. who? People United For Peace And Love? Those f***ers, lets get 'em. But yeah-More than likely, If there is any kind of revolution its going to be one of ideals.

A revoulution isn't that far away as many think oil prices form Mobs, Invasion of privacy causes protests, After the Internet loses its freedom we just need a massacre to start A new Civil War