More on Net neutrality...
Update e-mail I sent out today:
Hello, all~
Here's an update of the telecommunications bill issue, that I wrote you about on June 15th. In Senate now, it is called S. 2686.
To remind you: there's a telecommunications bill that's been introduced into Congress that is threatening to put government controls, bought by the highest corporate bidders, on the Internet. You can read all about it in detail at Save Access's website. You can read the bill itself and see co-sponsors here. Research it. Read about it. And as always, most importantly, make your own informed decision.
As mentioned, the bill is currently in the Senate, and due to heavy lobbying, it may be passed into a Senate Commerce Committee that will most likely be negotiating it in private. What is hoped for is that the bill lags in Congress' 109th session and goes till next year, when seats may change after election (to pro-net neutrality seats).
Write your Senators. You can find out who your senators are here, if you don't already know. Click on each of your senators' names. Under their respective sections, click Send Message, and then Compose Your Own Letter to send an e-mail or printed letter. There is also contact information, should you want to snail mail or call either office. You may also want to further impact by going to your senators' websites and sending letters there, too (substitute the last name of your senator in the URL). I received a form letter from Senator Feinstein's office saying that that would be a more effective way of getting my views counted. Naturally, sending to both of your senators would be even more effective.
I'm including a sample letter here (from saveaccess.org), in case you want to copy and paste and edit in your own words (we're still busy people):
Dear Senator __________:
As an advocate for free speech, local control and public access to communications networks I am concerned about the content and progress of the Communications, Consumers Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act (S. 2686) introduced by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and slated for mark-up on June 22nd.
As currently drafted, I stand in opposition to the bill.
S. 2686 is largely the work of Verizon, AT&T, Bell South and Qwest (the remaining national phone companies) who want to quickly expand and enter the video services market (also known as cable TV) by bypassing key open access and public interest provisions of the 1934 Communications Act (Title II and Title VI). As currently written, S.2686 will NOT make good on the promises of increased competition, lower rates, better service, more choices or expanded high speed internet access for rural consumers.
I urge you to amend S.2686 to:
1) Establish enforceable protections for network neutrality - i.e. require video service providers to allow competitors to use their networks. Without these protections, meaningful competition will not occur.
2) Explicitly outlaw redlining of franchise service areas on the basis of income or geographic location (Section 642).
3) Maintain local government control over the public rights of way so that they can continue to set the terms and conditions for consumer protections and existing levels of PEG access support (Section 331).
4) Allow municipalities to enter directly into the broadband and video services business -- without waiting for approval from the private sector. (Sections 501 & 502)
5) Protect public speech on video networks through the preservation of public, educational and government (PEG) access bandwidth and funding.
In particular:
- Maintain local authority over PEG requirements and guarantee that PEG uses will be defined by local community needs and interests.
- Remove proposed limits on the addition of PEG channels, grandfather existing agreements and allow communities to gain access to commercial features of the network (such as audio channels, interactive programming guides or HDTV) (Section 331).
- Remove proposed limits (1%) on PEG funding (Section 331)
- Adopt the detailed changes advocated by the Alliance for Community Media
Without these amendments, I urge you to vote NO on S.2686.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Thank you all--again--for reading and for considering doing something about this.
At least one of our California senators is in the ring. Now we have to work on the other one...thankfully, she's not opposed!
Thanks to Rob who's been keeping me updated with all of the new info coming down the pike!
Hello, all~
Here's an update of the telecommunications bill issue, that I wrote you about on June 15th. In Senate now, it is called S. 2686.
To remind you: there's a telecommunications bill that's been introduced into Congress that is threatening to put government controls, bought by the highest corporate bidders, on the Internet. You can read all about it in detail at Save Access's website. You can read the bill itself and see co-sponsors here. Research it. Read about it. And as always, most importantly, make your own informed decision.
As mentioned, the bill is currently in the Senate, and due to heavy lobbying, it may be passed into a Senate Commerce Committee that will most likely be negotiating it in private. What is hoped for is that the bill lags in Congress' 109th session and goes till next year, when seats may change after election (to pro-net neutrality seats).
Write your Senators. You can find out who your senators are here, if you don't already know. Click on each of your senators' names. Under their respective sections, click Send Message, and then Compose Your Own Letter to send an e-mail or printed letter. There is also contact information, should you want to snail mail or call either office. You may also want to further impact by going to your senators' websites and sending letters there, too (substitute the last name of your senator in the URL). I received a form letter from Senator Feinstein's office saying that that would be a more effective way of getting my views counted. Naturally, sending to both of your senators would be even more effective.
I'm including a sample letter here (from saveaccess.org), in case you want to copy and paste and edit in your own words (we're still busy people):
Dear Senator __________:
As an advocate for free speech, local control and public access to communications networks I am concerned about the content and progress of the Communications, Consumers Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act (S. 2686) introduced by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and slated for mark-up on June 22nd.
As currently drafted, I stand in opposition to the bill.
S. 2686 is largely the work of Verizon, AT&T, Bell South and Qwest (the remaining national phone companies) who want to quickly expand and enter the video services market (also known as cable TV) by bypassing key open access and public interest provisions of the 1934 Communications Act (Title II and Title VI). As currently written, S.2686 will NOT make good on the promises of increased competition, lower rates, better service, more choices or expanded high speed internet access for rural consumers.
I urge you to amend S.2686 to:
1) Establish enforceable protections for network neutrality - i.e. require video service providers to allow competitors to use their networks. Without these protections, meaningful competition will not occur.
2) Explicitly outlaw redlining of franchise service areas on the basis of income or geographic location (Section 642).
3) Maintain local government control over the public rights of way so that they can continue to set the terms and conditions for consumer protections and existing levels of PEG access support (Section 331).
4) Allow municipalities to enter directly into the broadband and video services business -- without waiting for approval from the private sector. (Sections 501 & 502)
5) Protect public speech on video networks through the preservation of public, educational and government (PEG) access bandwidth and funding.
In particular:
- Maintain local authority over PEG requirements and guarantee that PEG uses will be defined by local community needs and interests.
- Remove proposed limits on the addition of PEG channels, grandfather existing agreements and allow communities to gain access to commercial features of the network (such as audio channels, interactive programming guides or HDTV) (Section 331).
- Remove proposed limits (1%) on PEG funding (Section 331)
- Adopt the detailed changes advocated by the Alliance for Community Media
Without these amendments, I urge you to vote NO on S.2686.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Thank you all--again--for reading and for considering doing something about this.
At least one of our California senators is in the ring. Now we have to work on the other one...thankfully, she's not opposed!
Thanks to Rob who's been keeping me updated with all of the new info coming down the pike!
Comments