RSSNet Neutrality Fight Gets Religious
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published September 8, 2006, 3:44 PM
A group of US religious and ethical organizations, including Morality in Media, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, and Faith 2 Action, has issued an open letter to the Senate Commerce Committee, expressing support for the current language of a key communications reform bill that has emerged from conference, and is soon to be introduced for debate on the Senate floor.
It is the bill around which the current debate on "net neutrality" -- whether to prohibit broadband service providers from being able to offer premium carriage services to larger content providers -- is centered.
Net neutrality has entered the public circle of debate mainly due to the efforts of both supporters and opponents of the COPE bill, who are working to leverage public involvement to advance their respective causes. But many are saying that, in so doing, both sides have clouded the issue so much that individuals are no longer certain on which side they stand, or why.
The letter begins by praising the Committee for having "recently resisted attempts by Senators who wanted to regulate the Internet, but rather, included language that would specifically protect our ability to communicate our message."
The attempts to which the letter refers include one last May by Sen. Olympia Snowe (R - Maine), joined by Democrats on the Committee, to advance language that would have explicitly prohibited an Internet service provider from downgrading the quality of service (QoS) of material from any content provider, on the basis of its bandwidth. In other words, an ISP couldn't make Facebook slower so that MySpace will be faster, even if it gets paid to do so.
The letter goes on to credit broadband service providers with having provided tools to their customers, enabling parents to monitor and filter the nature of Internet-sourced content. Next, it credits telecommunications and cable companies for "creating the high-speed networks we know as broadband."
The COPE bill, which replaced an earlier Senate bill last May that distinguished between providers of cable television service from those of broadband Internet service, essentially equates the two, although language recently added in conference includes new exceptions.
By equating the two types of service, the COPE bill aims to enable cable and satellite providers with the means to obtain national franchises, to provide both television and Internet service throughout the country. Under the current system in the US, cable franchises are generally awarded by states and municipalities on a territorial basis; and with few exceptions in certain states, franchisees are given exclusive access to the territories they serve.
Congress wants to establish a federal franchise system that gives it an income channel comparable to what states and local authorities are currently receiving, but it can only do so by current law if national franchises can compete fairly with existing state and municipal ones.
Knowing that cable companies might not be so intrigued by the prospect of guaranteed competition, the authors of the COPE bill's predecessor, including Sen. Ted Stevens (R - Alaska), created provisions which would have enabled national franchisees to create tiers of service for content providers, giving them a way to charge different content providers higher fees in exchange for premium bandwidth.
Cable companies have argued that it's the high bandwidth servers, like Yahoo and YouTube, that force them to upgrade their service; and if the content providers don't pay their share of the upgrade fees, then those costs will inevitably be passed on to consumers.
The language including these provisions has since been stricken from the bill, although attempts by Sen. Snowe and others to replace it with net neutrality provisions have all failed. Thus, COPE opponents assume that, by not explicitly prohibiting what they characterize as the "Internet fast lane," the bill as currently written implicitly permits it.
Which do you prefer a government enforced regulation that tells Internet providers how to run their business or an ISP bill that looks like this:
basic Internet $49.95
VOIP quality of service $ 4.95
bittorrent overage $17.32 / gigabyte
port unblocking $ 4.95 / port
Federal rural video delivery charge $1.95
I think the Senate is going to give us both. You know like a compromise.
Score: 0
|Hey, with my current internet service, I have to pray that my connection is working anyway - and the god to which I have to pray is the first level tech support team at the ISP - let me tell you, it takes a LOT of praying!!!
Score: 0
|Wonderful. Now I not only have to deal with religious wars all over the world but I will also have to "pray" for permission to access the web? And to what god shall that be? After all there are as many as soap brands. The web should never controled by ANY religious or political groups. You don't believe me? Look at China. You still don't believe me? Look at countries under islamic law. Political and religious dictatorships.
Score: 0
|Isn't this great, what it boils down to is the government wants to find a way to make more money off the internet, they could care less about whether it is controled by religious fanatics. Just as long as they can get in on the cash cow. I love America.
Score: 0
|1st ammendment.
Score: 0
|I am so baffled by the mislead fanatics that are spoken of in this article. As much as the article was baffling...
So, some amoral religious groups believe that "net neutrality" isn't a good thing. I am thinking that these religious cults are against the people, and the internet.
I can see how there little minds could perceive that a neutral net could mean that the devil gets a more lush playground. That maybe the souls of all of us damned would be lost and harder to convert to there idiopathic religions of tough love and sardonic ideals. (oh man, i barely kept from laughing a lung up writing that last paragraph)
If that isn't what there thinking then there bulking up for a stance in politics, in which case i say, let em speak ... and take away all religious tax breaks.
It's one or the other... if state can't mix religion then i am opposed to religion mixing with the state. Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Cthulu have no place in politics... nor that spaghetti guy.
Score: 0
|"nor that spaghetti guy"... do you mean Chef Boyardee?
Score: 0
|Can someone summarize this article for me?
Score: 0
|It isn't surprising you're confused when the details of who is involved and what they're each saying is spelled out. Its a complete mess, and of course politics (and now religion) only makes it worse.
ISPs want to charge content companies (Google, YouTube, MySpace) for the high amounts of bandwidth they use (ostensibly to support infrastructure upgrades to keep up with the volume of data), and the content companies are fighting that, claiming that all information on the Internet should be treated freely and equally.
If you're looking for a simple breakdown of which political parties or religious groups are on which side of the issue, there really isn't one.
Score: 0
|Leave it to organized religion to back the telecom astroturf groups
http://www.commoncause.o...LNK1MQIwG&b=1499059
Score: 0
|No matter what it won't fly too long. No one will take this nonsense forever. "Even the mindless tire of mindlessness".
Even if it passed, too many of us would remember what the original purpose of the Internet was.
These are the last throes of a consumer society becoming very ill.
Score: 0
|Loads and more loads of BS...
Keep things fair, all round. I don't want to choose one ISP over an ISP purely on which websites I'll be able to access, it should be on the quality of the service they offer. Big companies with more money will be able to get more website, and thus snuffing out the smaller(and generaly better) competiters.
Keep things neutral!!!
Score: 0
|Morality in Media, the Institute on Religion and Democracy, and Faith 2 Action.... GO F**K YOURSELVES!
I dont mind if you F**K each other, but when you try and F**K me over with you selfrightious propoganda, F**K YOU.
Only brainwashed morons would even begin to oppose "prohibiting broadband service providers from being able to offer premium carriage services to larger content providers"
WTF crack are you all smokin? WTF
Score: 0
|You seem a bit agitated, WTF crack are you smokin?
;)
Oh, and Net Neutrality FTW!!!
Score: 0
|As scary as that post was GCoder, I have to say I agree with you...
The one nice thing is that Google is leading a heavy charge against it, and that is one hell of a heavy hitter to have on the consumer's side in this one.
Score: 0
|What GCoder said.
Score: 0
|To repeat a wonderful quote I saw on the Flying Spagetti Monster site,
"Jesus save me from all the nuts that believe in you"
Score: 0
|I prefer:
"Men never to evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it for a religious conviction."
Score: 0
|All the comanies are making money now, and lots of it. Seems to me only greediness is at work here...n all fronts.
And the only one to suffer will be the consumer...yet again.
THANX BIG CORPORATIONS!
Latz, SB
Score: 0
|