Congress Wants to Slow Down Your Internet

(Note that this was originally published May 9, 2006 by Michael Socolow who is an assistant professor of communication and journalism at the University of Maine. After reading it, I felt that it needed to be shown here in it's entirety. All emphasis are mine)

Congress wants to change the Internet.

This is news to most people because the major news media have not actively pursued the story. Yet both the House and Senate commerce committees are promoting new rules governing the manner by which most Americans receive the Web. Congressional passage of new rules is widely anticipated, as is President Bush's signature. Once this happens, the Internet will change before your eyes.

The proposed House legislation, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement Act (COPE), offers no protections for "network neutrality."
Currently, your Internet provider does not voluntarily censor the Web as it enters your home. This levels the playing field between the tiniest blog and the most popular Web site.

Yet the big telecom companies want to alter this dynamic. AT&T and Verizon have publicly discussed their plans to divide the information superhighway into separate fast and slow lanes. Web sites and services willing to pay a toll will be channeled through the fast lane, while all others will be bottled up in the slower lanes. COPE, and similar telecom legislation offered in the Senate, does nothing to protect the consumer from this transformation of the Internet.

The telecoms are frustrated that commercial Web sites reap unlimited profits while those providing entry to your home for these companies are prevented from fully cashing in. If the new telecom regulations pass without safeguarding net neutrality, the big telecom companies will be able to prioritize the Web for you. They will be free to decide which Web sites get to your computer faster and which ones may take longer - or may not even show up at all.

By giving the telecoms the ability to harness your Web surfing, the government will empower them to shake down the most profitable Web companies. These companies will sell access to you, to Amazon.com, Travelocity.com and even BaltimoreSun.com, etc. What if these companies elect not to pay? Then, when you type in "amazon.com," you might be redirected to barnesandnoble.com, or your lightning-quick DSL Internet service might suddenly move at horse-and-buggy speed.

It might appear that the direct ramifications of this bill are somewhat obscure. Why should you care, if your Internet fee isn't altered? Or if your Web surfing will (possibly) be only minimally disrupted? (The telecoms understand that completely barring access to certain sites - especially the most popular ones - would be counterproductive.)

You should care because any corporate restriction on information gathering directly counters the original purpose of the World Wide Web.

"Universality is essential to the Web," says its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. "It loses its power if there are certain types of things to which you can't link."

If calling up the Web site of your favorite political commentator takes far longer than surfing to a commercial site, the new laws will have a direct impact on the Web's democratic utility. The proposed laws also facilitate future steps toward corporate censorship. Do you think that the telecoms, under the proposed regulations, would make it easy to visit the Web sites of their disgruntled - or possibly striking - employees?

The proposed new rules have received surprisingly sparse media coverage. The new laws have economic, political and social ramifications. There are several explanations for the silence.


The most probable is simply that because the laws have strong bipartisan support in both houses of Congress, they do not appear particularly newsworthy. COPE has been promoted vigorously in the House by both Texas Republican Joe L. Barton and Illinois Democrat Bobby L. Rush. While a few legislators are attempting to preserve net neutrality - most notably Democratic Rep. Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Republican Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine - they are clearly outnumbered.

The history of American telecommunications regulation does not offer a promising model for the future of net neutrality. In the late 1800s, Congress approved of Western Union, America's telegraph monopoly, censoring the Associated Press. The 1934 Communications Act resulted in political discussion over the national airwaves being tightly moderated by CBS and NBC.

Most telecom laws are sold to the public as the "natural evolution" of communications technology. Yet there is no truly natural evolution to our telecommunications laws. Only very rarely is regulation completely ordained by physics or technological limits. More commonly, it emerges from the political process. This is news to many Americans unaware of their own media history.

Many people believe the Internet's decentralized structure guarantees that no company or oligopoly could control it. Internet censorship - whether by corporate or state interests - simply sounds impossible. Yet not only is it theoretically possible, but the history of telecommunications regulation tells us it is probable. By the time the telecoms start changing what you see on your screen, it will be too late to complain.


(My two cents now)
I urge each and everyone out there to email and call their representatives in Congress and tell them to vote no. Or at least support and vote for the neutrality of the internet. I don't know about any of you, but I darn sure don't want this site, or other sites that I read to be slowed down or shut off completely.

Your vote is your voice. USE IT.

How Low Can Bush Push the Republican Party?

The latest polls are in and only 31 percent of Americans feel that George Bush the second is doing a wonderful job. Just last week I believe his approval rating was at 33 percent. So how far can he fall?

According to the USA Today story here, only four other presidents in history have scored lower approval ratings since they began regularly measuring the polls in the mid-1940s: Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and George Bush the first. When Nixon, Carter and the elder Bush sank below 35%, they never again registered above 40%. At least Truman recovered somewhat.

I am very curious as to how Bush the second, and indeed the Republican Party as a whole will fare with the mid-term elections coming up. After all the Democrats only need 15 seats to usurp Republican domination and wrest control away. Already the democrats are planning what they will do once(in their minds anyway) they take over the house and senate. (For that story, read the article here.)

Can you say Speaker Pelosi? Or can you say Madam President Clinton?

Moussaoui doesn't want to go to prison

Zacarias Moussaoui has filed a motion asking the sentencing judge to withdraw his guilty plea.


You can read the whole story here .

Poor Moussaoui. Now he is saying that he lied about his part of the September 11 hijacking plot. Not only that but he said that he plead against the advice of his lawyers because he didn't understand the United States legal system.

Oh Boo Hoo hand me a tissue.

So now the big bad terrorist is afraid to go to his new home? Or is he afraid that everyone and history will forget about him as he rots in prison? Either way, his request will be turned down. Once the plea is entered and the sentence passed down in judgement, it is over.

Too bad for you Moussaoui. Now we can forget about you and laugh. And the last laugh is ours.

Isreal Answers Back to Iran (Finally)

"Iran can also be wiped off the map"
So reads the Online edition of the Jerusalem Post. This is the sentence uttered by Vice Premier Shimon Peres during an interview with Reuters.
The entire article can be read here.


As I wrote in an earlier blog entitled " Iran and the Latest Lunacy", I believe that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has to be either insane or perhaps is deluded by religion; I don't know which. But I do know that I stated just a few days ago that if Iran attacks Isreal, especially with nuclear weapons, then Iran will no longer be a country as we think of it. Isreal will retailiate with their own nukes and if anyone is out there that thinks Isreal doesn't have nukes, then they are oblivious to the truth of that reality.

As appearantly the man in the white strapped suit is who resides as president of Iran.

God help us all when he triggers WWIII.

Episcopalian Vote for Bishop

If you read my post below titled: "Episcopal Church Loses Collective Mind", you'll know that the Episcopalian church members were to vote on 7 different candidates for the position of Bishop of the Diocese of California. And you'll remember that 3 of those candidates were openly gay, living in an openly gay relationship. I complained that it seemed that the members of the Episcopalian church in even nominating such people violated God's word as laid out in his Holy Book and as such thumbed their collective noses at our Father.

But, as outlined here on CNN's website tonight, the members actually have a brain and decided to at least elect a Bishop who isn't gay.

In fact, according to the report, the three openly gay electees received only a "handfull of votes" each.

So to the brave memebers of this denomination who voted for a non gay bishop and to keep their denomination whole and not splintered, I commend you.

Rep. Patrick Kennedy and a Double Standard?

After reading the various news accounts about the Patrick Kennedy incident last night is there anyone out there who can honestly say that for whatever reason, he received extream preferential treatment last night. Let's really be honest here...if that had been anyone else, that person would have been given the breathalyzer test, and more than likely, taken into custody for DUI. What happens to Kennedy? Higher ranking capitol police than those at the scene show up, tell the on-scene officers to put up the breathalyzer equipment then drive Kennedy home.

Are you kidding me?

So tell me, what is the big difference here between Kennedy's experience and Cynthia McKinney's experience a few weeks ago? I didn't see the preferential treatment there, did you? Granted, McKinney was a little arrogant in not stopping for the officer when he asked her 3 times to stop, but I believe that she was treated a lot differently than Kennedy was.




So is there a double standard here? I think so.

Appearantly, so does some in the Capitol Police Department.

The Capitol Police statement said an investigation of the crash was still under way.

"Upon review, it has been determined that in the initial stages supervisors employed improper judgment," it said.

"Corrective administrative and personnel action has been taken. The Capitol Police remain committed to impartial and fair enforcement of laws and impartial and fair treatment of all citizens."

So maybe, just maybe, someone finally realized that the incident was handled improperly.

About time.

First Weekly "What the Heck?" Award Winner

I have thought about doing this now for a couple of weeks, but I held off doing it because I could not find that one “right” story that would start off the weekly awards with a bang (pun intended). Until now. So without further ado, I present my first Weekly “What the Heck?” award to the government of Australia and their Tax Officers. This award shows the idiocy of governments from around the world for their unbelievable actions that are taken. This award shows us just why we should question our government leaders as to just what the heck they think they are doing.

So here is the very first winner: The Australian Taxation Office.
What have they done? You can click on the link to read the whole story but the short version is that they are allowing prostitutes, strippers and lap dancers to claim sex toys, condoms, gels , oils and lingerie on their tax forms as deductions for “work related expenses”.

So congratulations to the Australian Taxation Office for being the first winner of the “What the Heck?” award.