Tag Archive: net neutrality

Net Neutrality WIN / Municipal Broadband WIN

Two good things out of Washington today – better than this embarrassment also that also happened there today.

Net Neutrality:The FCC passed net neutrality rules based on the strongest legal authority-Title II of the Telecommunications Act-to keep access from being controlled by corporations acting in their own interest, and not in the public’s interest. Vote was 3-2, Democrats for, Republicans against. Before the meeting, FCC Chair Tom Wheeler reached out his arms to clasp the hands of fellow Democrats Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel (it’s a great photo). The new policy, he said, will ensure “that no one – whether government or corporate – should control free open access to the Internet.”

We also have President Barack Obama to thank for this.

Verizon, predictably, decided to be a dick.

New York Times:

Tom Wheeler, the commission chairman, said the F.C.C. was using “all the tools in our toolbox to protect innovators and consumers” and preserve the Internet’s role as a “core of free expression and democratic principles.”

More on the landmark net neutrality vote, FCC’s municipal broadband ruling and comments on both from Sen. Cory Booker – on the jump page.

TONIGHT: CD12 Civil Rights & Liberties Debate – All 5 Candidates, Both Parties

New Jersey’s 12th congressional district is am

ong the best educated in the country (census). And it has been repped for 15 years by one of the most progressive members of Congress in the country (Holt: Highest Progressive Punch score in NJ’s House delegation). Part of Holt’s top designation is a near perfect ‘score’ in Human Rights & Civil Liberties, and other issues of social justice.

Double Standards! The U.S. on Domestic vs. Global Internet Policy

Just this month, the United States signed on to a Human Rights Council statement praising freedom of expression on the Internet, along with forty other countries across the world. The purpose of the statement is to emphasize how integral modern-day communications technologies are for the promotion of basic human rights.  You would naturally expect the United States, leader of the free world, to be a signatory — but can the recent slew of restrictive legislation being pushed through Congress allow the U.S. to support a globally open Internet in good faith??  Let’s take a look at the inconsistencies:

  • The HRC statement says: “We consider Government-initiated closing down of the Internet, or major parts thereof, for purposes of suppressing free speech, to be in violation of freedom of expression. In addition, Governments should not mandate a more restrictive standard for intermediaries than is the case with traditional media regarding freedom of expression or hold intermediaries liable for content that they transmit or disseminate.”
  • Yet, Senate Bill 978 — the "Ten Strikes Bill" — would make unlicensed online streaming (by corporations or individual Internet users) a felony punishable by 5 years in prison.

  • The HRC statement continues: “All users, including persons with disabilities, should have greatest possible access to Internet-based content, applications and services, whether or not they are offered free of charge. In this context, network neutrality and openness are important objectives. Cutting off users from access to the Internet is generally not a proportionate sanction.
  • Yet, Senate Bill 968 — the PROTECT IP Act or "Internet Blacklist Bill" — would give the government the power to force Internet service providers, search engines, and other "information location tools" to block users' access to sites that have been accused of copyright infringement.
  • HRC: “For us, one principle is very basic: The same rights that people have offline – freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek information, freedom of assembly and association, amongst others – must also be protected online.”
  • But the Obama administration is facilitating a "three strikes" style deal between Internet Service Providers and intellectual property rights holders to reduce bandwidth and restrict web access to certain sites for users who have been accused of copyright infringement.

If you can’t stand for such hypocrisy on the part of the US government, sign our petitions below:

You can read the full text of the HRC statement here, as well as the UN report on pro-Internet freedom being praised here.

Adler and Sires sell us out on net neutrality

Here’s Net Neutrality position John Adler ran on — and is still running on:

Net Neutrality

Currently, most residents in New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional district have access to only one or two Internet Broadband Providers. This relative lack of choice raises the possibility that Broadband Providers can slap a toll on content (what gets sent on the Net) and service (how fast.) This would lead to a multi-tiered Network where some Websites enjoy premium access speeds to their customers. Websites that are unwilling or unable to pay the toll would be relegated to the proverbial “slow lane.”

John Adler believes that this inequitable arrangement would threaten the dynamism on the Internet. John strongly supports Network Neutrality and the innovation and openness that stem from it. In fact, a primary reason the Internet and the World Wide Web have proven so dynamic is the inherent openness and egalitarianism of the Network.

John Adler believes that only by preserving Network Neutrality; ensuring a diversity of media ownership; and bridging the Digital Divide will the Internet thrive as a hub of innovation and free speech in NJ-3 and beyond.

Too bad that’s just an election position. John Adler recently signed an industry-backed letter that takes the opposite side, and seeks to block the FCC’s attempt to implement (I would say restore) net neutrality. He’s one of 74 House Democrats to do so. You can read about the FCC approach here :

…the key part is that FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski’s staff has been briefing FCC commissioners on changes that will be made to the regulation of Internet lines. The companies in charge of such lines, such as phone and cable companies, have been arguing that new regulations would hurt their businesses. They fear that they may have to open these lines to competitors (God forbid!) or be forced to have rate limits (the horror!). According to the WSJ report, the FCC officials are saying that won’t be the case, and instead will mainly be concerned with ensuring net neutrality.

Albio Sires was the only other New Jersey Democrat to sign on to the letter, which is a pretty good hint how bad it is. It’s not difficult to guess that they are motivated by money.

John Alder on Network Neutrality + open thread

(Mt Laurel, NJ)–

The Adler campaign just sent a Net Neutrality position paper to the IT guy to put on the campaign website.  In the meantime, it seems apropos to give the Blogosphere the first peek.

John Adler wants to ensure the free exchange of information and ideas via the Open Internet.

Currently, most residents in New Jersey’s 3rd Congressional district have access to only one or two Internet Broadband Providers.  This relative lack of choice raises the possibility that Broadband Providers can slap a toll on content (what gets sent on the Net) and service (how fast.)  This would lead to a multi-tiered Network where some Websites enjoy premium access speeds to their customers.  Websites that are unwilling or unable to pay the toll would be relegated to the proverbial “slow lane.”

John Adler believes that this inequitable arrangement would threaten the dynamism on the Internet.  John strongly supports Network Neutrality and the innovation and openness that stem from it.  In fact, a primary reason the Internet and the World Wide Web have proven so dynamic is the inherent openness and egalitarianism of the Network.

John Adler believes that  only by preserving Network Neutrality; ensuring a diversity of media ownership; and bridging the Digital Divide will the Internet thrive as a hub of innovation and free speech in NJ-3 and beyond.

Consider this a Net Neutrality Open Tread.