Democrats sneak Net neutrality rules into 'stimulus' bill

I guess we "can't" have our cake and eat it too. Last week we were up in arms because the cable provider in Beaumont Texas was going to charge access and bandwidth fees. Pure outrage. The reason for the fees? Because they can, they are the monopoly. It costs money to break a monopoly, and money always comes with strings attached.

I personally see nothing wrong with the bill, I don't own and operate a porn site, so filtering, if that should happen, does not effect me at all. I have a pretty fair grasp on the programming involved in filtering. My son works for a multinational company that manufactures engines and other components or military use. Their internal communications is the same protocol that is used for the web. Because of the classified nature of the business, the company decided (actually was urged) to filter the content of their communications. It has taken my son and his department three years, and 11 different languages, and they are only 25% finished. They are only working with five separate servers world wide, now imagine the same task with millions of servers, and nearly the same amount of programming languages.

This would be so complex we would never see it happen in our lifetime or our children's.

It is good that the public stay on top of the bills that are passed by congress, but a little research into both the wording and the reality of execution will keep the Chicken Little in all of us a bay.

I am for net neutrality, no gate keepers. NO GATE KEEPERS. Mass media communications are in stranglehold because of gate keepers. These are the owners, the major stockholders in the companies that control parts of the internet, Verizon and Comcast being two big competitors among many others, who for various reasons seek to dominate and compartmentalize the internet to increase their profits.

The internet is not just some independent cohesive entity of its own, no, you have twisted pair, coax, fiber optic, microwave, and satellite communications all being interwoven with the TCIP system of packets. This system has its flaws and viruses and worms are evidence of what can be accomplished with the current software platforms we are currently married to. Perhaps we need a divorce from the current dominant platforms but that is another matter entirely from the focus of net neutrality.

As has been mentioned in the thread earlier, technology has given companies the ability to monkey around with the internet. I firmly believe that allowing them to operate as GATE KEEPERS would cast a dark shadow on the First Amendment. Speech would be limited severely. I am glad that this language was "snuck" into the bill.

Well that's what the bill is there for. its to make sure that if the wire is laid down using government funds, well, everyone can use that wire. That's why Verizon and ATT aren't taking the grants, because it will basically force them to share.

Net neutrality has two faces, the actual side, and the side the telcoms have brewed up to get people angry against it so they may continue monopolizing our communications. The government would never be able to censor the internet, it would be struck down in a second by the courts and, if not, hacked the next second. The government has more interest in getting as many people connected to the internet as possible, because that's what their constituents want.

People always think of these representatives as a creepy bunch of people who we know purely through the lenses of Fox and Msnbc, but in reality, the majority of representatives in congress are indebted to their constituents, only a small minority are corrupt but they're in the limelight every 6 years so it gets hard to hide your dirty laundry.

Everything being talked about is in section 3102 "WIRELESS AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT
GRANT PROGRAMS."

couple of quotes for those of you who don't read legal papers for fun:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The National Telecommuni23
cations and Information Administration (‘‘NTIA’’)
is authorized to carry out a program to award grants to eligible entities for the non-recurring costs associated with the deployment of broadband infrastructure in rural, suburban, and urban areas, in accordance with the requirements of this section.

ok
so what are the requirements of this section?

I'll shorten it so its easier to read.

1)The NTIA will be charged with making a website that has all the contracts and what-not in each state. Like recovery.gov

2)All the states have to report to the NTIA all the projects with an emphasis on wireless and broadband for rural and unserved areas.

3)This is what all you guys are talking about. its on page 52 and says that the companies who get these these grants have to adhere to FCC 05-151. What the Federal Communications Commission’s broadband policy statement says is fairly simple:

• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
• To encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of the public Internet, consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

So basically, the rule is created so that there is proper competition in the telecommunications companies and they aren't throttling your traffic for no reason. It isn't to stop you from cruising your porn or keep you from going to anti government websites, its to stop cox from doing that. Net neutrality is just that, leave the net alone.

Net neutrality is what we need, net control is what we don't need, very simple.

@Hoax_Productions-

You can't expect the Dems to all of the sudden have a spine-LOL! Washington is a hornets nest of corporate whores and lackeys...and as much as I can't stand the Republicans either, I understand why people do things like this...open and honest doesn't work when interest are compromised from jump...

I have to agree with the general theme of this tread, the internet is already neuteral by design. Why not take the $$ and use it to fund startups that already have a good bit invested in rual areas (ie use of radio, satilite, hell intel has a wireless tech that can span 40 miles). I'm jumping a little of thread here but all of the stimlus money seems to keep going to corporate giants that put us in this mess in the first place. Would it not serve us better to fund the backbone of our econimy, the small buisness sector?

I think that Net Neutrality is a great thing, but trying to sneak it in on an unrelated bill?

That isn't the way to do things.
It should be brought out plain and clear.

Yeah...I thought we all wanted Net Neutrality...why is that a problem to you...?

leave the fucking internet alone, all u politics suck my big, long WI-FI antenna

Backdoor and sneaky stuff is never good on principal.

Bailouts are also generally bad, especially when they are not needed or thought through. The economy is driven by the consumer-- they would do better to just give 600,000 to every citizen.

Lastly, verizon and others have lobbied to make it illegal for "under served areas" to build their own wireless networks and provide free municipal wireless internet, as many rural "under served" towns already have done.

Some info to toss in the mix...
http://www.savetheinternet.com/=101
http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/03/net-neutrality-101/

This is a classic case of buzzword vs. actual understanding.

If you're FOR net neutrality, you're for keeping the internet THE WAY IT IS NOW.

If you're AGAINST net neutrality, you want the internet to be controlled and regulated by telecom companies.

This is not a bad thing guys.

Net neutrality rules. If the big companies get their way, we'll end up having to pay a specific amount of money per month for like, a hundred sites or so. Just like with TV.

As Martha would say. "This is a good thing."

It seems like a lot of people are misunderstanding net neutrality and the concept of the internet...

The internet is made up large WAN's called Autonomous Systems (AS). These AS's are generally controlled by private companies. HOWEVER, the companies will in turn allow access from other AS's into their network in an exchange of information - essentially the information that the "visiting" company has. Both companies will benefit.

Apparently they had to fight this neutrality thing for telephones too. For example, if your phone company didn't want you to be able to talk to another company (or anyone else, for that matter), they didn't have to connect you (which is bs).

With the internet, if it wasn't neutral, then your ISP could determine what data you could or couldn't receive. But it's inherent structure already makes it fairly neutral - like companies who own these AS's handshaking with other companies.

I don't understand how ANYONE could be against net neutrality...you pay for your internet service, who are they to block you from public data?

Excellent...

PIXELS TO THE PEOPLE !

next stop : The Fairness Doctrine
How we lost it, and why we need it back
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2053

"A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself" - Joseph Pulitzer

you should really take any "news" (yes, quotes) from cnet with a pinch of salt...

...wait...maybe the whole spices rack is better.

and good show there, giving the word "neutrality" a bad spin... awesome.

Sorry but supporting net neutrality is the way to go if you support the first amendment.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/1-future-of-internet-debate-...

Freedom of information is the issue. To claify my position, I believe the interent should be a fucking free-for-all! No filters, no censors, no tiers, no omittions.......FUCK the FCC! Now, as for the rules that were slid-in on the stimulus bill, I'm not sure about the details. If they were put in place to keep the Net Neutral, then I'm pumped. My knee-jerk reaction to the sneaky legislation is probably from the past 8 years of bullshit. Sorry for the confusion everybody.

So this is an problem because...??? Hell, net neutrality was one of the many reasons I actually like the democrats this year. And I don't think you can call it "sneaking" when the president announced that he was going to do this on live TV.

I can't understand some people.... talking about this as if there is something wrong with net neutrality... this is a very good thing... whats with the "sneaking" negativity....

net neutrality is one of the most important issues of our time. it needs to be talked about more.

Come on... The dems are already shooting themselves in the foot? What happened to all that honest straight forward no earmark talk? So much for placing your faith in anyone anymore. That's why congress's approval rating is smaller than my penis!

If Congress gives the FCC (or what ever) the power to regulate the Internet, it will make things worse, either because it cannot keep up with the Internet’s rapid evolution, or because industry incumbents will succeed in getting their own allies in key positions within the commission. Either way, the results could be very different from what network neutrality proponents are hoping for.

The internet is naturally neutral by design [http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9775], we don’t need politicians fucking it up!

Openness and competition in the market place is the solution. Make sure a single company does not fully own any critical part of the internet.

This was one of the reasons I voted for Obama. I think Bansheewail just might be a bit confused by the topic.

Look into a bit more Banshee and I think you'll really change your mind and realize who the true enemy was.

I have no idea what the poster is talking about. Net neutrality is a very good thing. It guarantees equal access to the net to everyone. Its chief opponents are the Republcan party and the telecoms e.g Comcast, Verizon who want to make different levels of access available depending on how much you pay rather than keeping it as it is now, complete access for one price. Simply put, they are trying to do to the internet what they've done to cable television.

"The so-called stimulus package hands out billions of dollars in grants for broadband and wireless development, primarily in what are called "unserved" and "underserved" areas. The U.S. Department of Commerce is charged with writing checks-with-many-zeros-on-them to eligible recipients, including telecommunications companies, local and state governments, and even construction companies and other businesses that might be interested."

Wait...you mean JUST like the rural electrification program...the same program that enabled and fostered HUGE economic benefits. Examples include all but three of the technology hot spots (think silicone valley), etc.

Yes, it is not being done as carefully as it probably should be done. But the long term gains FAR outweigh the problems with the implementation.

All efforts to preserve net neutraility should be supported.

I don't guess we'll even get to talk about it now. Game over. The Information Age is coming to a close. If we had a filtered internet, we'd be stuck with McCain/Palin. It was fun while it lasted. I expect our posts to be a target sooner than later. You may not even get to read these few words. I guess we'll have to start knocking on doors to spread the news. Who's coming with me!!!