Join the New Fight for an Open Internet (OT but important)
Dear Friend,
Video: Rep. Ed Markey talks about his new bill
Take Action Now
Last night, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House that would stop Comcast, Verizon and AT&T from controlling the free flow on information on the Internet.
The only way we can stop these gatekeepers is if we all take action to support this crucial legislation:
Tell Rep. Henry Waxman to Support Internet Freedom
In 2006, your voice helped stop mighty phone and cable companies from gutting Net Neutrality. In 2007, you pried open their cell phone networks and gave users a choice.
This year, we're going to stop Internet blocking and censorship once and for all.
Why This is Important: Reps. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) introduced the "Internet Freedom Preservation Act" (HR 5353) to stop relentless corporate attempts to set up roadblocks on the information superhighway.
It guarantees Net Neutrality by restoring it in the foundation of communications law. This bold move promises that the public -- not phone and cable companies -- will control the fate of the Internet.
The legislation also calls for a nationwide series of public hearings before anyone in Washington hands these gatekeepers and their lobbyists more power. (Read more about the bill here)
Take Action Now: Save the Internet
How Far We've Come: In 2006, more than 1.5 million Americans called on Congress to keep gatekeepers off our Internet. Last year, more than a quarter-million people sent comments to the FCC and opened up cell-phone networks to user choice and innovation.
This new bill was made possible by our amazing grassroots movement. SavetheInternet.com has brought together Democrats and Republicans, consumer groups and small businesses, bloggers and video gamers, in a new bottom-up majority that's shaking up the status quo.
What You Can Do: For too long, communications policymaking has been rigged against us. But by taking action to support this bill, you're telling Congress that high-priced lobbyists will no longer set the agenda.
Tell Rep. Henry Waxman : 'Support the Internet Freedom Preservation Act'
The purpose of the Internet is to give power over information to everyone. The role of our elected leaders is to protect our basic right to communicate from those who want to take it away from us.
We've started a new chapter in the fight for an open Internet. We realize that it takes more than one piece of legislation to reverse decades of corrosive telecom policies.
But with this bill -- and your help -- we are on our way.
Thank you,
Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
SavetheInternet.com
P.S. Bloggers, activists and Internet experts are logging on to the Free Press Action Network to discuss Net Neutrality, an open Internet and people-powered broadband policy. Join the discussion at http://www.freepress.net/action/
Net Neutrality is govt REGULATON - BAD for liberty!
Please please don't buy that regulation creates liberty.
Is Net Neutrality a new regulation?
Absolutely not. Net Neutrality has been part of the Internet since its inception. Pioneers like Vinton Cerf and Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, always intended the Internet to be a neutral network. And "non-discrimination" provisions like Net Neutrality have governed the nation's communications networks since the 1930s.
But as a consequence of a 2005 decision by the Federal Communications Commission, Net Neutrality -- the foundation of the free and open Internet -- was put in jeopardy. Now cable and phone company lobbyists are pushing to block legislation that would reinstate Net Neutrality.
Writing Net Neutrality into law would preserve the freedoms we currently enjoy on the Internet. For all their talk about "deregulation," the cable and telephone giants don't want real competition. They want special rules written in their favor.
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=faq#stake
Deliberate Confusion
It's interesting...and I'm sure it's no accident that the bill was named this way...
The bill that would kill off freedoms and neutrality on the net was named the "Net Neutrality" bill!
I have seen many posts across the web where people deride Dr. Paul because "he voted against Net Neutrality!" -- well, of course he voted against the Net Neutrality bill; its very name was the exact opposite of the what the bill was truly about!
The moral of the story is: just please read the fine print of those long, boring bills, because relying on the title of a bill alone can be terribly misleading ("Patriot Act", anyone?). I don't know the text of the bill referenced in this post, and I will check it out for myself. Hopefully, it's great! All I'm saying is: read the full text before jumping on any legislative bandwagons. Good advice for all bills.
We can't save everything
The best thing we do is get people elected who will make good legislation. If we try to tackle every important social problem, then we'll always be swating the branches of the problem and never attacking the root.
If we elect the right people, we won't have to worry about this stuff.
I actually think I agree
I actually think I agree with this legislation but coming from a tech household, I am under the impression that it is virtually impossible to regulate and own the internet..it is completely different from tv and radio.
I invisioned something to that effect too.
Basically, if we stave off this sort of thing long enough, there will be enough active wireless capable devices and computers in any given local that a mass ADHOC style network is possible. A 'peoples internet' if you will. At that point everything if free. The two biggest downsides would be teaching average users to practice their own security and long distance transmission over 'dead spots'
Still a lovely thought :)
Paul is against this
and so am I. Why do so many Paul supporters not understand basic libertarianism? It's really ironic.
We libertarians are against government regulations. We want to allow private enterprise to do whatever it wants as long as it does not commit fraud. Private enterprise cannot "censor." Only government can censor.
Dr. Paul says clearly that he does not want the government to regulate the internet. Net Neutrality is regulation! If an internet businesses does't want to be neutral, that ought to be their right!
Thanks for explaining..
I must have misunderstood the intentions of this bill.
It's
the difference between negative and positive liberty. Libertarians are for negative liberty, meaning freedom from government coercion for themselves and their businesses. People who believe in positive liberty, such as socialists, believe in things like net neutrality and regulation of the media to make sure it's fair. They think they government ought to coerce people and businesses in order to make life fair. That's 180 degrees opposite Paul's philosophy.
The tricky part is our current situation
True liberty means govt does not control any aspect of businesses. This means it allows a "true free market". In such a situation there can be no monopolies because natural market competition will eliminate these.
Now in our current situation with entities like the FCC we DO get cable company monopolies. And so they control all the flow of the internet. So if they decide to create a "two-tier" internet where their "certified" sites run fast and everyone else (whom they may want to censor) just happen to run slower (at dialup speed) then gradually these independent sites will die.
Therefore, many people would like the govt to intervene and make sure that these monopoly companies do not implement such a system.
The ROOT cause is ignored. The root cause is the fact that government regulates communication overall. If these controls were removed we would be truly "liberated" and therefore not even need to worry about Net Neutrality laws etc.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Gauranga.
The solution to gov't regulation...
...is NOT to beg for additional regulation.
It's the oldest con in the oppressive rulebook and you are falling for it:
Gov't creates oppressive rule #1.
Gov't then convinces people that rule #1 is not going anywhere... they should take it as a given... sure in an "ideal world" it wouldn't even exist, but it does.
However, gov't is sooo sooo nice that today, and today only, they MAY be nice enough to implement an additional oppressive rule #2 that has a byproduct of limiting SOME of the effects CAUSED by oppressive rule#1 - if only we ask nicely for it.
So people buy this and line up and BEG for oppressive rule #2 - thus furthering the gov'ts influence on society.
WHY ARE PAUL PEOPLE FALLING FOR THIS?!?!?!?
bump
FCC 1888-225-5322 445 12th st sw Washington D.C 20554 ONLINE COMPLAINT www.fcc.gov