The Warp - Net Neutrality

Internet Freedom and Nondiscrimination Act of 2006

Fri, 26 May 2006 10:37:00 -0700

It looks as though there is some hope after all for getting something in to fight the good fight for Net Neutrality. I encourage everyone to write or call your Representative to support this bill...

A BILL To amend the Clayton Act with respect to competitive and nondiscriminatory access to the Internet.

Introduced: May 18th, 2006

Sponsors: Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner [WI]; Rep. John Conyers [MI].

Status: Introduced

1. It is a violation of the Clayton antitrust Act for broadband providers to:

    a. fail to provide access to its broadband network on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms and conditions to anyone to offer content, applications or services at least equal to the broadband provider?s own services (or its affiliate?s services);
    b. refuse to interconnect with other broadband providers;
    c. to block impair, discriminate or interfere with anyone?s services or applications or content;
    d. to prohibit attachment of equipment that does not harm the network;
    e. to fail to disclose information about the broadband service.

2.If a broadband provider prioritizes traffic of a particular type, it must prioritize all traffic of that same type, with no additional fee.

3.Nothing prevents broadband providers from nondiscriminatorily:

    a. managing the network to promote security;
    b. give priority to emergency communications;
    c. prevent a violation of law or comply with a court order.

?Affiliate? is defined to include anyone the broadband owner owns, controls or has a contract with.

?Broadband Provider? is anyone ?engaged in commerce? who offers a broadband service to the public, with or without a fee.

?Broadband Service? is defined as any 2-way service and connects to the Internet at at least 200 kbps.

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/358

T-Mobile the first offender of Net Neutrality...

Tue, 09 May 2006 14:54:00 -0700

While T-Mobile may not technically be the first they are starting to forbid access to specific web applications because they see them as a threat to their own business. This is the same model that will repeat itself over and over again all over the web if something is not done to fix the issue of Net Neutrality. If I pay for internet service on my T-Mobile phone and want to use VoIP on that cell phone, they should not have a right to limit what I can access. Before long cable companies that offer their own phone service will start completely blocking Vonage or degrading their connections to force users to use their own higher priced service. This whole issue needs to get brought under control now. Otherwise we will loose the freedom to use and consume the internet as we see fit. It shouldn't be up to the service provider what we can or can't access, it should be up to me. Articles: VoIP on Cell Phones: Read the Fine Print http://www.savetheinternet.com/ UPDATE: A couple of people have wondered what exactly T-Mobile is banning.... This is from the first article entitled: VoIP on Cell Phones "T-Mobile International, which has mobile phone operations in Europe and the United States, is among the first companies to ban the use of VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol, or Internet-based telephone service) over its networks. Its Web 'n' Walk professional service expressly prohibits such usage, and the company reserves the right to terminate contracts."

Another Article on Network Neutrality...

Wed, 03 May 2006 11:18:00 -0700

The Slate has an interesting article on Network Neutrality and what it means for the future of the internet. Here is a quote from the article: "In trying to figure out who's right, let's forget about the Internet and look at KFC. The fast-food chain discriminates. It has an exclusive deal with Pepsi, and that seems fine to pretty much everyone. Now, let's think about the nation's highways. How would you feel if I-95 announced an exclusive deal with General Motors to provide a special "rush-hour" lane for GM cars only? That seems intuitively wrong. But what, if anything, is the difference between KFC and I-95? And which is a better model for the Internet? Two obvious differences are market power and the availability of substitutes. KFC is a small fry, relatively, locked in competition with the likes of McDonald's and Popeye's. KFC sells Pepsi? So what? McDonald's sells Coke. It's a lot harder to substitute for an interstate. And if highways really did choose favorite brands, you might buy a Pontiac instead of a Toyota to get the rush-hour lane, not because the Pontiac is actually a good car. As a result, the nature of competition among car-makers would change. Rather than try to make the best product, they would battle to make deals with highways. " http://www.slate.com/id/2140850/fr/rss/

The internet should be free...

Mon, 24 Apr 2006 13:00:00 -0700

Maybe not free monetarily, but it should be free from different levels of service for different amounts. It basically will create a huge digital rift in our society from users that might not be able to afford the same services as someone else. The net really should be a level playing field in my opinion. Cablevision shouldn't have the right to block my Vonage access just because they have a competing service that costs nearly $10 more a month and they shouldn't have the right to charge me more because I want to use my bandwith differently than other users. It really makes no sense and will end up destroying the internet as we know it today. http://www.savetheinternet.com/