The begining of the end

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary.  Now with pictures!

Threaded View

Yorkshire Pete /

Re: The begining of the end

Fleeing from the madness of the Mayor of  
Yorkshire jungle
and said:

Quoted text here. Click to load it

This has been discussed before - IIRC it stems from two large ISPs nickle  
and diming their peering agreement

bad news for USA residents and providers

good news for UK hosts

in general I'm not convinced of the benefits of counting bytes (and other  
small things), the simple cost of maintaining the counts tends to push the  
base-line price upwards

William Tasso

Re: The begining of the end

Per Yorkshire Pete:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Would that open up the market for ISPs in other countries to compete with USA
ISPs by offering network neutrality?

Re: The begining of the end

Quoth Yorkshire Pete in alt.www.webmaster

Quoted text here. Click to load it
I've actually been harping on this one a lot over the last few days.  Here's
what went out this morning - I'll probably have guys in
trenchcoats on my doorstep tonight:

-- begin --

There has been some, but not enough, noise made about TOMORROW'S House Energy &
Commerce Committee vote on Net

Tomorrow's vote on 'handing over the keys' to the internet to the likes of AT&T,
Verizon and Comcast is not only a violation of
anti-trust philosophy, but it is damned dangerous to our ability to share
information amongst ourselves without relying on
mainstream media.  

The current voting status does not bode well for the internet - at least here in
the US - (ahhh - American arrogance - we are the
only country in the fscking world!!).  

C'mon guys - time to get on the phone!

If you'd like to see how your representative is voting - check out this map  - (plain text
list at the end of this message).

There are a *lot* of red dots (bad). There are more yellow dots (good). There
are few green dots (good, but not good enough).

To Re-cap:

Companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast are spending tens of millions in
Washington to kill "network neutrality" -- a
principle that keeps the Internet open to all.

A bill moving quickly through Congress would let these companies become Internet
gatekeepers, deciding which Web sites go
fast or slow -- and which won't load at all -- based on who pays them more. The
rest of us will be detoured to the "slow lane,"
clicking furiously and waiting for our favorite sites to download.

Some of our elected representatives are trading favors for campaign donations
from phone and cable companies. They're being
wooed by people like AT&T's CEO, who says "the Internet can't be free" and wants
to decide what you do, where you go and
what you watch online.

The best ideas never come from those with the deepest pockets. If the phone and
cable companies get their way, the free and
open Internet could soon be fenced in by large corporations. If Congress turns
the Internet over to giants like AT&T, everyone
who uses the Internet will suffer:

Google users -- Another search engine could pay AT&T to guarantee that it opens
faster than Google on your computer.

iPod listeners -- Comcast could slow access to iTunes, steering you to a
higher-priced music service that paid for the privilege.

Work-at-home parents -- Connecting to your office could take longer if you don't
purchase your carrier's preferred applications.
Sending family photos and videos could slow to a crawl.

Retirees -- Web pages you always use for online banking, access to health care
information, planning a trip or communicating
with friends and family could fall victim to Verizon's pay-for-speed schemes.

Bloggers -- Costs will skyrocket to post and share video and audio clips --
silencing citizen journalists and amplifying the
mainstream media.

Online activists -- Political organizing could be slowed by the handful of
dominant Internet providers who ask advocacy groups to
pay a fee to join the "fast lane."

Small businesses -- When AT&T favors their own services, you won't be able to
choose more affordable providers for online
video, teleconferencing, and Internet phone calls.

Innovators with the "next big idea" -- Startups and entrepreneurs will be
muscled out of the marketplace by big corporations that
pay for a top spot on the Web.

Tell these pusswads to knock it off! Contact *your* representative TODAY!

I have compiled a list of who is voting tomorrow, and what their current voting
status is.  

Let's get on the phone and call these people - even the ones who are selling us
out!  It is not enough to sit around and rant - we
have to do something!  

I have called each of these people already today (my phone bill is going to
SUCK!).  How about a little help here, hey?

Thanks to all of you for reading/listening.

House Energy & Commerce Committee

voted against net neutrality

Rep. Charles F. Bass II (R-NH) 202-225-5206
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-NY) 202-225-5936
Rep. Michael A. Ferguson (R-NY) 202-225-5361
Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-MD) 202-225-8699
Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) 202-225-5744
Rep. Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) 202-225-5755
Rep. Paul E. Gillmor (R-OH) 202-225-6405
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI) 202-225-3761
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) 202-225-4735
Rep. Edward Whitfield (R-KY) 202-225-3115
Rep. Bobby L. Rush (D-IL) 202-225-4372
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) 202-225-5271
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) 202-225-2811
Rep. Charles W. Pickering (R-MS) 202-225-5031
Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE) 202-225-4155
Rep. John Sullivan (R-OK) 202-225-2211
Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) 202-225-2002
Rep. Charles A. Gonzalez (D-TX) 202-225-3236
Rep. Barbara Cubin (R-WY) 202-225-2311
Rep. Greg Walden (R-OR) 202-225-6730
Rep. George P. Radanovich (R-CA) 202-225-4540

voted for net neutrality

Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) 202-225-2836
Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) 202-225-4671
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) 202-225-3861
Rep. Michael F. Doyle (D-PA) 202-225-2135
Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI) 202-225-4071
Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-NM) 202-225-6316
Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) 202-225-6311
Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-CA) 202-225-8104

not yet voted

Rep. Thomas H. Allen (D-ME) 202-225-6116
Rep. Joseph R. Pitts (R-PA) 202-225-2411
Rep. Tim Murphy (R-PA) 202-225-2301
Rep. Ted Strickland (D-OH) 202-225-5705
Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) 202-225-3401
Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) 202-225-1976
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) 202-225-4231
Rep. Stephen E. Buyer (R-IN) 202-225-5037
Rep. Michael J. Rogers (R-MI) 202-225-4872
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) 202-225-5211
Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-GA) 202-225-4101
Rep. Jim Davis (D-FL) 202-225-3376
Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D-IL) 202-225-2111
Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) 202-225-2906
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO) 202-225-6536
Rep. Michael A. Ross (D-AR) 202-225-3772
Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) 202-225-7772
Rep. Ralph M. Hall (D-TX) 202-225-6673
Rep. Gene Green (D-TX) 202-225-1688
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) 202-225-4431
Rep. John B. Shadegg (R-AZ) 202-225-3361
Rep. C.L. (Butch) Otter (R-ID) 202-225-6611
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) 202-225-3601
Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-CA) 202-225-3976
Rep. Mary Whitaker Bono (R-CA) 202-225-5330
Rep. Hilda A. Solis (D-CA) 202-225-5464

# remove _your_clothes_ to email me

Re: The begining of the end

Matt-the-Hoople wrote:
Quoted text here. Click to load it

One minor thing to remember: This is not a vote FOR OR AGAINST THE BILL.
It is a vote on whether to take it to the floor for a full House vote.
(although I will grant that the way someone votes in committee is likely
to be the way they vote in the end)

If it gets to the full house (which seems likely), then it's time to put
the pressure on your reps. Mine already dreads hearing my name, so you
know I will :)

Site Timeline