rare pattern thoughts in a blog

["Net Neutrality San Jose", posted by jimiinc]

The news is not reassuring for anyone who counts on unrestricted and uncensored access to the internet.

Despite the flurry of phone calls, emails, videos and pleas from a wide base of passionate pro-Net Neutrality constituents, representing hundreds of thousands of people from all political persuasions and hundreds of consumer groups, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives crushed an amendment to safeguard an equal opportunity Internet.

After just 20 minutes of debate on the House floor, Rep. Ed Markey's proposed amendment to the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), which subsequently passed without Net Neutrality provisions, was rejected by a vote of 269-152. While the voting appears to be largely partisan, with only 11 Republicans voting in favor of the amendment and a surprising 58 Democrats voting against, Net Neutrality, in its short time in the public eye, is an apolitical issue.

I think what jmiller means is that it has been a non-partisan issue, at least when it comes to the grassroots support of "net neutrality." He doesn't mince words:

But Congressional leadership was largely unconvinced by an idea embraced by a diverse list of organizations that would typically be swinging the political pendulum at each others' faces. Think MoveOn and the Christian Coalition. Think the American Civil Liberties Union and the Gun Owners of America. Think Parents Television Council and the National Coalition Against Censorship. Add their support to the very founders of the medium as Vinton Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee stand beside unlikely cohorts Moby and Alyssa Milano.

Even with a constituency like that, whose sudden unity should sound with exponential resonance within the ears of those who represent them, the US House of Representatives ignored it by siding with telecommunications and cable duopolistic entities. The ears of a dinosaur are difficult to reach, but his carrion is easy enough to see - it leaves droplets of green behind it.

Of course, the uproar over "net neutrality" has been largely restricted to the realm of lobbyists and (/vs.?) bloggers.

The mainstream media, especially television and talk radio, which will discuss something as benign as Brangelina's baby or something as polarizing as immigration reform, have been conspicuously silent on the matter, which may account for why the public seems largely unaware of it, as well as the apparent deafness of our representatives.

--Which only goes to show the importance of the internet.

Pamela Heywood on 7c marketing has a news rundown on the "net neutrality" nixing.

jules at tech whisperer looks at the technological trends, including something called IP Multimedia Subsystems ("IMS"), and worries:

IMS isn't about convered services. IMS is about POLICY CONTROL. All those neat little features are just disguising the real impetus behind the technology. Once the network knows who you are and what your bits are doing, they can enforce user policies on what your bits are and what you can do with those bits. That is not cool. Full stop.

I used to be a die hard anti-net-neutrality chick. Now, not so much. I have taken the green pill, and we HAVE to have net neutrality. IMS is going to put entirely too much power into the network. Yikes.

Meanwhile, on AfterSlash, pyza considers the implications:

If there is enough bandwidth then everyone’s traffic will get through regardless of Net Neutrality. If there is congestion though, without Net Neutrality only traffic from sites that paid the extortion fee will get through.

Does this not lead to a situation where it is ideal for an ISP to maintain a certain level of congestion at all times in order to ensure that there exists a reason to pay the extortion fee?

One the other hand with Net Neutrality in place it’s in the ISP’s best interest to maintain an adequate level of bandwidth to make sure everyone’s traffic gets through.

zittiblog is more blunt:

I know most of my fam reading this are proud republicans, which I once was, but it is stuff like this that is totally setting me off!! I still consider myself generally conservative for the record, but anyone who thinks it’s cool that political parties vote right down party lines on issues like this is crazy. It is total crap that anyone looking out for consumers and the good of the internet would vote against net neutrality (see the article). Thank you republicans for paving the way away from a free internet owned by the people to a corporate dominated, paid internet.

You can basically bet that any large website that offers free content will require a paid subscription since they are going to have pay telecoms large amounts for the use of bandwidth, THE SAME INTERNET BANDWIDTH YOU AND I ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR EVERY MONTH WITH YOUR INTERNET SERVICE BILL!!

Kim Krause Berg calls this The Day the Wild, Carefree and Sexy Internet Died:

The gist of the new age of the Internet is that people will no longer have as many choices or even a say about how we get the Internet, or what we get from our ISP's. Everything has been threatened by greed, and we knew that would happen. Eventually.

Now it's here. Some people say that now, what I'm able to get from the Internet may be up to how much I can afford to pay for, or who my Internet provider is and what sites and services they intend on letting me have access to.

I wonder how long this control will last.

Website Services Magazine quotes a "net neutrality" opponent:

Peter Suderman, technology analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute had this to say, "A market in which Internet service providers aren’t allowed to prioritize the content traveling over their networks is one with less innovation and fewer benefits for everyone involved."

That's exactly the point, though -- Why should ISPs decide what you can and cannot see?

Roger Strukhoff asks, Is God on the Side of Net Neutrality?

Now the Christian Coalition of America, headed by well-known religious commentator and political candidate Pat Robertson, has jumped into the pool. A letter from the organization, addressed to U.S. House of Representatives Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) requests that he support "Net Neutrality legislation (that wlll) prevent the large phone and cable companies from discriminating against web sites." The letter cites pending legislation that addresses both sides of the issue, and states that the Coalition is "committed to working on behalf of our supporters to ensure that the Internet remains the free marketplace of ideas, products and services that It is today."

At issue specifically is a bill known as HR 5252, in which the Christian Coalition claims "there is nothing to stop the cable and phone companies from not allowing consumers to have access to speech that they do not support. One of our concerns is this: What if a cable company with a pro-choice Board of Directors decides that it doesn't like a pro-life organization using its high-speed network to encourage pro-life activities? Under the new rules, broadband service providers could block, impair, or otherwise limit access to a pro-life website, harming their ability to communicate."

This almost sounds like the work of Harcourt Fenton Mudd.

[Cross-posted on BlogHer.]

About the author

Laura Scott is a web designer and developer.