For Batgirl!

Charge!

Long live bat-girl! (And welcome home)

Seriously, though, make sure to visit that link guys. They've got a great petition that you can fill out your information and it will automatically send letters to your representative and senators. Over 1,000,000 people have already used it.

Also, welcome back, Beeg!

This is one of those things that you don't hear about much in the news...and it's scary.

This is a bad thing, a REALLY bad thing. We're talking bad...and wrong.

Almost...badong.

Supporting net neutrality is easy, fun, and makes you more attractive to the opposite sex (or the same sex, whichever you prefer. but not both). Please do as Batgirl commands.

The scary thing is that as a Brit who goes to US based websites I'm going to get stung by this if it goes through and I have no representative to write to and no one to not vote for.

When I first got into baseball I didn't have the internet and used to shell out for USA today for 2 day old box scores. the internet makes this whole thing possible, second thing I check every morning is last nights scores. Plus there's Batgirl of course :-)

Already signed awhile ago, but thank you, BG, for bringing this to everyone's attention. It's so critical.

Dan: You can still sign the petition! It's not limited to US residents. In fact, I see "United Kingdom" right there in the Country dropdown. :)

As an aside, I sure am glad to see my ISP (Earthlink) listed as one of the tech companies who oppose this.

In the interests of considering all sides of an issue, I went to "Hands off the Internet," to see what they had to say about all of this. Their appeals to "the American consumer," betray their utopian vision of the Internet: one where people passively consume pre-fabricated content and pay them for it.

Anything for Batgirl! Done and done.

Hey, I've voted for both of the senators sponsoring Net Neutrality... and one is the only Republican I've ever voted for.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention, BG. *signs petition while silently cursing Comcast*

Representative Martin Sabo--Sent
Senator Mark Dayton--Sent
Senator Norm Coleman--Sent

Done, done and done.

Thanks for the heads up, BG.

Thanks, Batgirl.

"(or the same sex, whichever you prefer. but not both)"

damn it.

Done! I also sent the info to others to sign the Petition.

Mission accomplished =)

Those r@t b@st@rds -

Much Love
Wonder Woman

This is my first post ever, and I'm sorry it has to be about something that should be sacred. If I end up not getting to read Batgirl EVERYDAY, I could become very irrate. Thank you very much for alerting me of this problem batgirl, and keep up the awesome work.

Torhu hit this right on the head...i would guess that the majority of the population of our country has no idea this legislation is about to pass...and there's little doubt it will completely change every one of their lives. how does something so undermining of our freedom go so unnoticed by the media? it truly is scary...
i just signed it and sent it to my senators here in South Carolina.

That 'Hands off the Internet' site is disgusting. They are trying to make people think that this legislation is necessary to avoid government regulation of the internet. That's complete bullshit. This is entirely the product of the service providers' greed, and it pisses me off to see them try and pass off what they're doing as some noble cause.

Will, it peeves me that the "Hands Off" site presents itself as a blog by regular people, instead of paid P.R. professionals, and include "edgy" Flash cartoons that are some suit's idea of geurilla marketing. Of course, they are just lazy Flash animations with typical powerpoint-style narration, so they're good for a laff.

DONE!

Done! Even got my canned response from Norm Coleman already.

"Like you, I recognize the importance of making broadband Internet available to all of Minnesota through fair and open competition."

I sent this message. If you want to do more than simply add your name to the petition list, feel free to copy/paste it.

-----------------------------------

The Internet is a free and open network that connects people and their ideas with an efficiency never before witnessed. That freedom of communication, which still carries a price tag, is what makes the Internet so innovative.

The CEO's say, "The Internet can't be free." Last time I checked, it wasn't. I pay $40 for high-speed cable Internet. Granted, I'm in Alaska so it costs a bit more, but I've never heard of anyone offering free high-speed access, and probably never will. There is money to made by ISP's with in the current structure. The margins are thinner, but too bad.

The current system is great for consumers, and companies. There is competition! Congress would violate everything our market-based economy stands for if they start doling out the internet to just a few companies who lobby the most.

Finally, I haven't seen the specifics, but I have one other concern. Please read this, because it's important.

The Internet is all about Content. ISP's and Telecom companies don't provide the content, they provide access to someone else's content. Someone Else's Work! By no means should they have the right to charge for access to someone else's work, then not let them share in the profits.

For a clear example, consider this:

There's a popular amusement park at the end of a road. The city sees how popular it is and decides to implement a $30 toll for access to it. They don't give any money to the park, which is why the people want to use the road in the first place, and since the park can't build a road of their own - they are stuck. The city is basically stealing money from the park, who will get less visitors as a result of the higher real price of attending the park.

Now, I ask you, is this in the best interests of American consumers? No way!

Question for those who know more about government than I do: One of my state senators is finishing up his term in Congress and is not running for reelection in the fall. Should I send my letter to the men running for his office or what?

Dear Annun,

The vote will be this week, so call him.

Helpfully,
BG

Okay. Thanks, BG.

"There's a popular amusement park at the end of a road. The city sees how popular it is and decides to implement a $30 toll for access to it. They don't give any money to the park, which is why the people want to use the road in the first place, and since the park can't build a road of their own - they are stuck. The city is basically stealing money from the park, who will get less visitors as a result of the higher real price of attending the park."

uhhh, Andy, I'm all for low-cost access to Batgirl and all, but do you really think that the (massively publicly subsidized) Internet is equivalent to a private amusement park? And even if you do, why should the amusement park be able to impose costs on the community without consequence? (ever LIVED by an amusement park?? ever tried to drive on a road that leads to, say, a casino??)

If the road that services the amusement park is the Internet and the Internet is the "content", who pays for maintaining the road? Who pays to widen the road when the traffic gets so heavy that it slows to a crawl?

Doesn't it makes sense _in principle_ to charge a premium for high-demand services? That is how the marketplace works, after all. We make choices with our money. Millions still use dial-up because they are unwilling to pay the costs for high-speed access.

I worry about being able to access Batgirl's brilliance. I also worry about increasing bandwidth consumption by VOIP services and streaming video services used by businesses to make money. I am ignorant about the particulars of the legislation, so I'm not advocating for or against Batgirl's plea here.

I encourage Batgirl readers to read up on the concept of net neutrality along with thinking about signing the petition cited by BG (see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality ). I'm sure some of you are much more knowledgeable than I on the technical and economic issues at stake. Perhaps one of you could point us to further resources.

Sigh, it's so much more fun to think about boom-boom sticks . . .

Brian-

The amusement park metaphor isn't perfect because, yes, there is some 'noise' pollution and congestion near these places. The fact that you bring up those negative externalities associated with a park, when I was simply using the amusement park as a symbol for internet content is very strawman of you.

Perhaps I'm uninformed, but how is the Internet funded by massive public subsidies? Don't we pay for telecom infrastructure with our cable/phone/internet bills?

I have a Twins blog too. I post content on there that attracts visitors, with none of the negative externalities that go along with an amusement park. My visitors pay for their service (i.e. how they get to my site) in some way, and they shouldn't have to pay more or less to get to my site.

As far as internet traffic on the whole, if the companies have to upgrade to fiber optic cable - so be it. Charge me whatever it cost to do so, and let the market sort out the price for improving infrastructure. This is how you deal with congestion.

In the end, this comes down to the question of 'who should (or has been) bear(ing) the cost of congestion?' You may think it's the ISP's, and that's what they want you to believe. The answer to this question is always the same though. The customer pays. If you increase corporate taxes, who pays? The customer, in the form of higher prices. If the Internet begins to slow due to congestion, because demand for it's content is so high, consumers will pay a higher price for better service.

The perfect solution is to leave it to the market to decide. And for the most part, it has. Those who use the internet less get dial-up, and pay a cheaper fee. Those who generate more traffic, more congestion, will have to pay a higher fee.

The thing that should NOT happen, is for Congress to eliminate competition by divying up the net to various companies who can then charge whatever they please for site you want to visit because they represent the only road into the amusement park.

Dear Mr S and Mr, Wink,

Indeed. We are already paying for the road, and widening the road when necessary. We pay our ISP bills. This proposal is simply about putting the content of the internet in the hands of the big telecom companies for their own profit, not about need.

Sincerely,
Batgirl

I almost fell out of my chair when I read about this... I work in basic biomedical research and I use small sites all the time to swap tips on technical stuff and get free access to academic info. (And maybe read Batgirl while I am waiting for my experiment to be done.) If you have ever know anyone hoping for a cure - SIGN THE PETITION NOW! Basic science research is already being strangled by rising publication costs and government funding cuts... I don't know how much more we can take.

Thanks for the heads up, Batgirl! I'm telling everyone I know.

Andy:

correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I think the backbone of the Internet still is (largely government-funded, including quite a bit of money from NSF initially) university-to-university connections. Without that large network already in place, building the modern Internet and Web would have been very, very difficult if not impossible. Private ISPs and content providers are already making a lot of money off the public investment in the Internet.

Anyone who gains access to the Internet can use it for his own purposes. Some people want to move data very quickly and are willing to pay extra to accomplish this goal.

If a scheme can be devised to charge them for this privilege such that the revenues benefit the community as a whole (via investment in maintenance/expansion of the network itself), I say that is a good thing. I'm mystified as to why such an idea _in principle_ would raise hackles.

Again, I'm saying nothing directly about the legislation in question. I'm just suggesting that the cartoon version of "net neutrality" is not so obviously the right answer.

All this talk of techy stuff and politics makes my head hurt.

I hope we see some boom boom sticks tonight, I also hope the good Bradke shows up tonight.

GO TWINS!!

I work with the coalition Hands Off the Internet that was mentioned in a few of the comments above.

The entire net neutrality debate has been infused with a lot of misinformation from everywhere. Sites like this won't be relegated to a back road or blocked from people viewing it at all. The "back road" would be the tier of the internet we know today, which I wouldn't classify as slow or a back road.

In additon, the telecos want to upgrade the current copper network to fiber in order to accomodate future demand as broadband deployment continues and high bandwidth technologies like VOIP, music and video downloads and eventually internet tv arrive. We will need more capacity to accomodate all of this traffic and to maximize speed and efficiency. There will be a premium tier to ensure that emergency services, VOIP, and video downloads are faster and unaffected by high volume of traffic.

What the telecos want is to avoid burdensome government regulation that isn't necessary and be able to recoup the billions they will spend on these upgrades. Currently the FCC has net neutrality principles and the chairman, Kevin Martin has said that additional net neutrality regualtions aren't needed at this time.

Hi Twins fans! I'm a Chicago fan, friendly (read: NL), coming to visit your beautiful bubble this weekend. Any suggestions on a good place to, um, imbibe, near the park?

I'm looking forward to my toupee being sucked off my head! See you this weekend, thanks in advance.

PS: What's a funnier name, Boof or Hrbek?

I wouldn't get too worked up about 'the public investment' in the internet. I think the bulk of that happened several years ago. From a public standpoint, it's probably the best investment made since the Revolutionary War.

How many jobs have been created as a result of the net? How many fields have undergone rapid advancement? How much more enriched have our lives become? And it cost much less than the bulk of other things our government spends money on.

Today, I think, most of the infrastructure upgrades are being made by corporations who are building onto the university networks of old.

Basically, this bill will allow ISP's to charge consumers and content providers more for what people most seek out on the web, good content (be it academic or entertainment). That doesn't sound like a bad thing, until you grant a monopoly on which ISP's get to offer access to which content.

Or, who gets to own the toll-road into the amusement park. And since there's only one road in, who sets the price? Not the market... now it's the ISP who has pricing power.

I think all you have to know about this issue is the ISP's are after pricing power (who isn't?). Right now the consumers have pricing power because they can choose between several ISP's and get access to the same internet. The ISP's want to change that, without approval of those who provide content.

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, BG. I wrote two GOP senators asking them to support the Snow-Dorgan bill.

Dear WPZ,

I recommend Grumpy's on Washington because they have deep fried Mac-n-cheese, a good jukebox, good beer and it doesn't get as crowded as most places.

Helpfully,
HooliganKat

Welcome to the Miniapple, WPZ. We're happy to have the Cubbies here this weekend. I'm looking forward to the series. Two good watering holes for you to look into and close to the dome are Huberts on 6th St and Grumpy's on Washington Ave. After the game be sure to amble on down to Nicollet Mall for a pub crawl. And to answer your question - neither Boof or Hrbek, the funniest name is Ryne!

Wilson, what the telcos want (and say) and what the bill allows are two different things. The telcos say they won't discriminate but because the bill allows it, they will because discrimination in this sense is profitable. How else to explain tiered cable and phone services? There is nothing stopping the cable companies from giving everyone access to all of the cable channels at the same price but because it is allowed (just as it allowed by this telco bill) and more profitable, they will tier the internet.

BrianS, you might be thinking of Internet2, which is the high-bandwidth project being developed by universities with industry partners and funding by government.

Goose, the cable structure is different, cable companies could offer every channel at the same price, but they would lose money. They charge more for ESPN and HBO becuse they have to pay those channels for the opportunity to provide them to consumers.

It would be bad business for the telecos to block access to any site. Despite what people say competition is growing and over 100 cities are in negotiations for wi-fi in addition to DSL/broadband. Consumers have choices to switch should this ever happen. As for the tiered service, you pay more to get more. Nobody will be denied access, this is unfounded.

As I mentioned before, here are FCC Chairman,Kevin Martin's comment on the issue;

"Consumers need to be able to access all the content that's available over the Internet without being impeded by the access provider," Martin said. "But at the same time, we recognized that the people that are deploying these networks may offer differentiated speeds and differentiated products to the consumer.

"And if you offer different tiers of speeds, a consumer chooses the lowest tier, and he wants to access content that would require higher speeds than he has purchased, he's not being blocked from access. He just hasn't purchased the speed that's necessary."

Martin added that the commission has demonstrated its willingness to step in and take action if it sees, for example, a large cable or phone company discriminating against certain content providers. However, he said: "We're not seeing widespread examples of abuses in the marketplace that would justify us trying to adopt rules at this time."

http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?dist=newsfinder&siteid=google&guid=%7BD093217B-CCE6-42DE-947F-12395F413280%7D&keyword=

Considering the government's track record on consumer protection and regulating the excess of corporations lately, Mr. Martin's comments are not at all reassuring. The very point at issue is whether the big communications companies should be allowed to create fees for content providers as well as set up "premium fees" for customers just to keep the same level of service we've come to expect. Mr. Martin admits that the legislation would create a system of tiered service; he just apparently thinks it's all well and good, and since he's the Authority it's best that we don't worry our pretty little heads about it. Sorry, I'm not swallowing it.

This is bad legislation that just gives a hand-out to corporations at greater expense to consumers, and it will degrade the quality of service for most users and non-corporate site operators online. Anybody who says otherwise either stands to profit or is being paid to represent the profiteers.

Welcome, Wilson. It's nice to have you posting to Bat-girl.com for the first time.

But to be frank, speaking just for myself, I find the name of your industry coalition, "Hands off the Internet," quite duplicitous and therefore unprincipled. I have to call it like I see it. We here at Bat-girl insist on civil discourse, but when you try to sell the sun as the moon you have to be called on it.

There is little controversy here.
1. The industry wants to privatize, practically speaking, what was formerly deprivatized.
2. This isn't about market forces preferring a change in the status quo--it's about industry lobbyists courting legislators in order to change what's not broken...simply for more profit.

It should probably be said that the comments of the current FCC chairman about the scene today aren't relevant.

It also needs to be said that assurances from would be local monopolists that "we promise we won't limit customer choice" will be met with laughter. We get poor, limited service from any number of monopolists every day. We are not going to trust Comcast or Time Warner to place Bat-girl.com on equal footing with TimeWarner.com.

Goose:

No, I'm not, although the Internet2 thing is interesting in its own right. I'm thinking ARPANet, NSFNet, CSNET, etc. Between 1981 and 1984, CSNET went from its original 3 members to 84 university sites. Along comes TCP/IP and international connections, and new, fatter pipes paid for in significant part by NSF (see below). Thence came explosive growth in CSNET membership and usage and merger with BITNET in 1988.

"In response to the network's rapid growth, in 1987 the NSF gave IBM, MCI, and Merit Network Inc. a contract to upgrade the NSFNET backbone. By July 1, 1988, a much faster 1.5 Mbps network had been established for communication between the original supercomputing centers, plus seven additional research networks: BARRNet, Merit, MIDnet, NCAR, NorthWestNet, SESQUINET, SURAnet, and Westnet. The upgraded NSFNET connected more than 170 TCP/IP enabled networks in all. Merit received a contract to manage the backbone, and traffic began to double approximately every seven months."

see: http://www.livinginternet.com/i/ii_nsfnet.htm

All this is just a long-winded way of saying that the NSF supports Batgirl! (Yea, NSF!)

To be clear, Wilson's group, Hands Off the Internet, is an advocacy group funded by the telecom organizations (please see the link below), so please take his comments accordingly. Apparently they are successful enough to have time to Astroturf bloggers linking to Save the Internet, which frankly, Batgirl does not appreciate.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hands_Off_the_Internet

Eeeeek! I came to get revved up for tonight's game and the blog is overrun with techno speak. I don't pretend to understand a thing that brianS said but I do see one plain English item from Wilson that needs clarification. This is a classic example of making a point to support an argument that sounds smart but actually doesn't make sense for the point being argued.
"Despite what people say competition is growing and over 100 cities are in negotiations for wi-fi in addition to DSL/broadband."
The answer to this in the current context is 'so what?' When Comcast couldn't find the problem causing our intermittent DSL signal last winter, we wondered if switching to wi-fi would be the answer. No, it would not. Because Comcast would still provide the wi-fi and it would be the same line into the house. We'd just be able to migrate the computer about. Problem not solved but it was a very insightful comment into the lobbyist argument of trying to show that competition is growing because of wi-fi when actually it's just a different way to get your same buck. Sorry for the long post. I need to sign the petition before the game starts. :)

This is an important topic, and I'm glad Batgirl is talking about it, and I'm glad Wilson came in with the other POV and was candid about his/her position, and I'm proud that the community is discussing the issue so far without bad words or Nazi analogies. I suspected that Batlings were a special class of people and this discussion supports that opinion.

Now, I understand why people would be wary of government regulation, the government is our government and is answerable to us, while corporations are not ours and are not answerable to us. Sometimes "government regulation," means "citizens protecting themselves from corporate greed and malfeascence." Back in the 1980s there was a big move to deregulate the aviation industry, for example, which was followed by a lot of plane crashes. People learn some lessons the hard way. Sometimes red tape is just red tape, and sometimes it's holding your parachute together. I suspect this is one of those cases.

I also want to reiterate my revulsion to the continued appeal to the "consumers." This is how HOTI sees us. We are not citizens wanting to participate in something grand, we are mere bank accounts waiting to be tapped. The Internet is not something created by the people who use it, but a product to be created and delivered by corporations. No matter how much money they spend on geurilla marketing strategies like subversive-looking Flash cartoons and paid interns surfing the blogosphere to put canned comments on any advocating net neutrality, their language gives them away.

Sorry to be so long winded. I meant to write a sentence or two and got carried away. Now to go watch some baseball.

I hate to interrupt the democracy/lobbocracy discussion, but the following excerpt is from today's news release re AL All-star voting results:

"Yet the most significant development among catchers may have been the breakthrough of Joe Mauer. Minnesota's remarkable batsman, who leads the Majors with a .380 average, gained enough support to crack the leaderboard at fifth place, with a total of 464,161 votes."

FINALLY. At least he's on the freakin' board. Thanks for posting that, Bob! :)

"Apparently they are successful enough to have time to Astroturf bloggers linking to Save the Internet, which frankly, Batgirl does not appreciate."
Didn't impress me either

Today, when a large company or a small startup company wants to do business on the internet, they must purchase “access”. For BatBooks, that access is probably just a DSL line or a cable line or maybe even a dial up line. Any of those access lines is probably enough for BatBooks to do business initially. Now, BookCo, the really really large on line bookseller, the DSL, cable and certainly dial up are not close to being big enough. BookCo is going to have to purchase larger access lines; these are called T1s, DS3s or even OC48s. These can be big Big BIG circuits able to carry the data needed to satisfy the demand of millions of purchases. The big companies, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the like, have sold both of these businesses, BookCo and BatBooks, their own access line.

Now, if I were to go to ww.BookCo.com or ww.BatBooks.com my shopping experience would be the same. I would be able to browse books, purchase T-Shirts, read reviews and post my own. Most likely the limiting factor will be the “access” line that I have purchased into my home.

This model has served us all for a long long time. And very well. It has allowed BatBooks to compete with BookCo. It has allowed me to discover great content and I have benefited immensely from this model.

Now, there have been some technical advances. It has been found that fiber is faster then copper, that new “switches” are much much faster than the old ones, and MOST important, it has been discovered that it is possible to stream voice and video and data using some pretty nifty technologies.

Now, BookCo and BatBooks both set out to increase their revenue and begin to offer “streaming audio” of the books they are selling. Business quickly takes off. But, in time, both companies find that consumers are calling in and complaining of “choppy voice” or “poor quality”. The downloads will miss words or skip back and forth. Initially, the two companies encourage the customer to purchase broadband to “improve the quality of the product”. Those customers who want this product delivered at a certain quality do so. Those that don’t, don’t.

As time goes on, both of the book sellers’ find that the number of “poor quality” complaints are rising, and worse yet, the callers already have broadband. Both BookCo and BatBooks call their service provider asking what is wrong with the quality of the data. The carrier, AT&T or Verizon, says that the book sellers must increase the size of THEIR access circuits. And so they do.

Now, the service providers begin to develop a business model of their own. They go to BookCo and –AND—to BatBooks and offer “Quality of Service”. This is the ability for the bookstores to deliver CERTAIN TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS to be delivered faster. This is not different than the method both booksellers currently employ when they offer separate shipping options on the books they sell: “Ground, 2nd Day, or Overnight” So, our booksellers contemplate this service and come to this conclusion.

They can prioritize streaming audio while keeping normal “text based services” the same as they have always been. What’s more, the cost of this “Quality of Service” is based entirely on the amount of traffic generated by each company. Again, not unlike shipping costs. FedEx or UPS will charge BookCo and BatBooks each the same per book to deliver it next day air. So, while companies like BookCo have more money to spend, this in no way affects BatBooks ability to purchase the same service.

And during this whole business evolution, sites that are primarily text based, like Bat-girl.com, will continue to provide content that is both valuable and available to everyone, at no cost to either Bat-girl or the consumer.

Notice, the end user was NOT charged any additional money except as incorporated in the cost of the service they buy, again, much like choosing to have your new book shipped overnight from FedEx. I am not "pro" or "con". But I think that this is what the carriers are offering. I don't think that they are trying to "block" anyone's access.

BG-

Thanks for the heads up. I wrote to our Minnesota Senators and my Rep.

Freedom to connect with whomever we choose is something I take for granted. It would be a huge loss to not be able to wonder around the sites of the world as we desire.

-kal

Way to go, kal. Without net neutrality, a big telecom company would be the gatekeeper to your internet access--the amazons of the world would pay the telcos to get access to your house and the batgirls of the world could not.

Hah. You think you can get away with this little revolution, do you? Skynet knows where you all live. I can hear the dogs already....

Done^6. Got the two senators and rep that I have here in MN as well as the senators and my rep in Madison. Thanks for that BG.

Wilson, you've been snowed. Completely. 28.4 inches on Halloween. I hear what your saying and if the telcos lived up to their word, fine, but the bill allows them to do so much more. and they will. that's what businesses do. make money any way they can, promises be damned.

Your saying? Eff. Where's the edit button? ...you're saying...

And, Jeb, the Amazons of the world don't like it anymore than Batgirl does. Amazon, eBay, Earthlink, Yahoo, and Google have all come out against it. You imagine if some technological problems were looming, those companies, who live and die by the Internet, would be all for this "solution." The only people this advantages are the big telecoms.

Mr. NC, I admire your postive thinking, but you are not correct on what the compaines are proposing. Firstly, the difference between the bookstores offering different kinds of shipping verses the telecoms charging for better service comes down to a simple principle: user choice. There is a world of difference between a company offering different kinds of shippings and a telecom telling a small business they have to pay for their site to be streamed effectively. Secondly, the companies are actually looking to tier service, much like cable--to offer different kinds of packages based on user fees and company fees.

What we are talking about, again, is private control of the internet, companies picking and choosing contents based on fees (and possibly politics--we've seen broadcasting companies pick and block things on the basis of politics. do we really want them to do the same on the Internet? And the same goes for conglomorates and content. We've seen plenty of synergy amongst the Disneys and Viacoms. What happens when Time Warner decides to launch its own sports network and as a result priviledges that content over Disney's/ESPN? And since there are monopolies and no consumer choice, they can do whatever they want.

I'm highly suspicious of the argument that the corporations want control over the Internet just to provide better service. For instance, a Canadian ISP recently charged customers a$10/month "Quality of Service" fee in order to use Vonage as opposed to their own VoiP, which would, naturally, be streamed with no trouble at all. They then intentionally downgraded the service for all other VoiPs. Another Canadian telecom blocked access to a website supporting the Telecommunications Workers Union during a labor dispute.

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/topnews/wpn-60-20060620CanadianISPANetNeutralitySmokingGun.html

Batgirl, my apologies if I offended or irritated you with my posts. I'm merely trying to provide alternative information so people can be more informed when they decide where they stand on this issue.

As some people noted I was very upfront about my affiliation with HOTI and it's extremely apparent who our member organizations are including; AT&T, National Association of Manufacturers, National Black Chamber of Commerce, Citizens Against Government Waste, and more.

Just to clarify this isn't the battle of David vs. Goliath as has been depicted. The content providers, a few small companies like Microsoft, Google, Ebay, Amazon are supporting net neutrality as a means to save money not for a noble dedication to a utopian vision of the internet.

As for your reference to the accusations of the Canadian ISP (Shaw) downgrading Vonage, these are nothing more than false allegations. Shaw isn't downgrading Vonage, they built there own private network and anyone who wants can pay to use it. Does it not make sense that if a company spend the money to build there own faster network that they should be able to charge more to use it? Nobody is being denied access, but during peak usage times calls may be vulnerable to being dropped on the normal network.

Preemptively, I will provide responses to the other false allegations of blocked service such as the recent claims against Cox for blocking Craigslist. You can read an explanation here;

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=249

Again, I'm not trying to troll or spam the site and you can call me a shill/astroturf whatever. It seems to me that the presence of my anti net neutrality argument only enhances this debate. By proving me wrong you can strengthen your argument. Thanks for letting me post here.

Wilson, it's quite disengenuous to say this is a battle between a afew companies (Google, etc.) against a few other companies (AT&T, etc.). The fight to protect Net Neutrality is being taken up by a very wide range of groups and individuals.

By far the largest number of vocal defenders of Net Neutrality are individual bloggers like Batgirl. This has nothing to do with money for her and thousands of other individual publishers.

Jeb, I didn't mean to imply that individuals and bloggers (both small and large) don't have a stake in this issue. There are individuals and bloggers on both sides with no affiliation to the telecos or content providers who have a vested interest outside of monetary compensation.

But again, this site or any won't be degraded or blocked from anyone viewing if a faster tier of the internet is built.

Signed and sent to Oregon pols!

If content is regulated, controlled/made inaccessible/charged for by the companies that bring the service to us, it will go from being an infinite system to a limited one. Keep in mind that all the other countries we compete with will still have an infinite system of internet communications to work with. From a purely practical standpoint, who wins? We in the US end up paying to access less and less (and everyone else has to pay for access to US sites too), while other countries continue with infinite access? I'm guessing US market share goes way down.

For those still interested in this thread, here is a link to a recent pop-economics article on "The Economics of Net Neutrality." It is worth a read. Know your enemy, and all that.

http://www.bepress.com/ev/vol3/iss6/art8/

Access is, I think, free. If you have trouble accessing the pdf, email me and I will send you the file.

the authors are affiliated with AEI (free-market righties), so be warned.

Twink: an "infinite system of internet communications"??? If only it were so.

the idealized Internet would be a strongly meshed network. But that isn't really what we have. The real Internet is a lot more like a tree structure, with local or regional networks connecting to the trunk/backbone in one/few places. bottlenecks...

Thanks for the link, brianS.
Another middle- to right-leaning (at least firmly free-market) publication, The New Republic, is in favor of keeping Net Neutrality. They offer an editorial, "Bush Administration Prepares to Wreck the Internet," here:
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=oy4NRC5%2Bfnu%2Fm585FtGwlC%3D%3D
This doesn't appear to be a completely partisan issue.

Any issue that's brought the Christian Coalition and Moveon.org to the same team is obviously not a typical partisan issue.