Action: Saving the Internet

Update [2006-4-26 16:25:40 by mcjoan]: The Committee just rejected the Markey amendment to preserve net neutrality, 22-34. Democrats Rush, Green and Gonzales all voted no. Since we couldn't squash this telcom give-away in the House, next we'll focus on the Senate. We did manage to flip quite a few Democrats, however, so that's the good news, that and the Senate looks to be friendlier to us on this issue.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is in final mark-up of the COPE Act, that AT&T/Verizon/Comcast legislation that will give you about as much unfettered access to the Web as you have choice in cable providers.

Here are four representatives on the Energy and Commerce Committee that can be  convinced to vote with us if we apply some pressure.  If you live in the following districts, please call them. (Here's a full list of Representatives on the Energy and Commerce Committee, for the rest of us.)

When you call your Representative, here's what to tell them: "Please protect internet freedom from corporate interests by voting for Ed Markey's amendment on network neutrality."

Bart Stupak (D- Michigan, 1st)
http://www.house.gov/...
[phone]
[phone] - Fax

Tom Allen, (D - Maine, 1st)
http://tomallen.house.gov/...
[phone] (phone)
[phone] (fax)

Mike Ross (D - Arkansas, 4th)
http://www.house.gov/...
1-800-223-2220
[phone] (fax)

Jim Davis -- (D - Florida, 11th)
http://www.house.gov/...
tel: [phone]
FAX: [phone]

•  Thanks mcjoan!

  For people who want an easy to understand explanation of this "protection racket" which Telcos are trying to foist on us, see Night Owl's diary

  for a more detailed explanation, I recommend Wikipedia.

  by biscobosco on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:26:20 AM PDT

  •  And by the way - not so much 'corp interests'

    As "stifiling innovation" and gutting what makes the internet the great force for the economy (and free speech) that it is.

    Google and Microsoft, for example both support net neutrality. Its bascially the telcos against almost everyone else.

    see Cnet

    It is a choice between favoring the broadband designs of a small handful of very large companies or safeguarding the dreams of thousands of entrepreneurs, inventors and small businesses," Markey said. "Tomorrow, we will vote to preserve the Internet as we know it or vote to fundamentally and detrimentally alter it."

    by biscobosco on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:30:52 AM PDT

    •  Intel, too

      They were neutral on it, but this week came out against the legislation and in support of net neutrality.

      by mcjoan on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:36:25 AM PDT

•  Diana DeGette's offices have told me

  she's still mum on her position, but the map at savetheinternet gives her a lovely green dot, indicating she supports Markey's amendment. Yahoo! If accurate. (?)

  by bumblebums on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:28:21 AM PDT

•  Rep. Schakowsky says she supports Markey

  At least, that's what I was told when I called the DC office this morning.

  by Matt Jordan on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:30:02 AM PDT

•  We have only D names here

  Are our loyal counterparts doing the same with R names?  Because even if we get all the D names, we lose.

  by Major Danby on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:32:43 AM PDT

  •  They are

    This is a truly bipartisan effort. Glenn Reynold (AKA Instahack around here) is on the Save the Internet team.

    by mcjoan on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:34:07 AM PDT

•  made the calls.

  Except the 800 number for Ross, which doesn't seem to work from my area.

  This is important, folks. Make the calls.

  by Joe Bua on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:36:10 AM PDT

•  Isn't this a global resource, not just US?

  The internet connects the globe and communities across the globe, not just corporations to their customers.  It is not something that should be possible to 'own' like this.  How does one privatize global communication?  How does one dare to conceive of this?

  Why do these representatives even dream of cutting up this pie and cutting out the rest of the nations?

  The greed of ATT has a history of criminal antitrust proportions.  Why is this history ignored now?

  Would not this sort of thing require UN approval?
  I don't understand why Democratic representatives are part of the scum backing this?  Why isn't Reid and Pilosi on their backs ripping out their back hair?

  by antirove on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:36:33 AM PDT

  •  from what I understand

    all sites will be accessible, but some sites will have preference, i.e., some will load in 1/2 second and then others will load like you're on a 2400 baud dialup modem.

    by BlueInARedState on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:41:23 AM PDT

    •  They can stop sites with $

      It seems to be covered here:

      http://www.rawstory.com/...

      If Free Republic or RedState remains free and DailyKos isn't, sort of like the military's view of things.  If you have to pay to read DailyKos will you?  Kos will probably be forced to offer free advertising for AT&T, or worse, just to stay visible.  To have fast access will require more quid pro quo.

      The Rawstory above points to:

      http://www.democraticmedia.org/...

      And don't forget Time-Warner AOL loses email if it's critical of AOL.

      http://mediacitizen.blogspot.com/...

      Please note some of the democraticmedia.org articles on how CISCO will providing the routing hardware for the telco ISPs to use in 'tuning' the internet to play like they want it to play (pay for play), rather than as we the people want it to.  

      The toll booths they want to erect will require the money from we the people inorder to view the content we want.  We'll be tracked by the commerce this creates as well as the access logs.  Shareholders, corporate officials, lobbyists and Congress critters will look at what pays off and what doesn't, and may decide what unprofitable content can disappear.  Fits in real nice with the TIA program.  And since our internet providers and military industrial complex overlap in too many ways already, this isn't a joke.

      by antirove on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 02:22:29 PM PDT

•  Dems Voted Down on Net Neutrality

  By an 8-to-23 margin, the committee members rejected a Democratic-backed "Net neutrality" amendment to a current piece of telecommunications legislation. The amendment had attracted support from companies including Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo, and their chief executives wrote a last-minute letter to the committee on Wednesday saying such a change to the legislation was "critical."

  Before the vote, amendment sponsor Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat, assailed his Republican colleagues. "We're about to break with the entire history of the Internet," Markey said. "Everyone should understand that."

  ...

  Last week, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton said: "Before we get too far down the road, I want to let the market kind of sort itself out, and I'm not convinced that we really have a problem with Net neutrality."- CNET

  by TPaine on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:38:05 AM PDT

  •  That's Old News- April 5

    Sorry, just noticed the by-line.

    by TPaine on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

    •  I freaked when I saw your post

      I didn't think they'd gotten to the vote yet. So I've been searching everywhere looking for confirmation, just in case they had the date wrong. But that was the subcommittee vote.

      by mcjoan on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:44:13 AM PDT

    •  Right that was a subcommittee vote

      This is the vote before the whole committee

      by biscobosco on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:46:42 AM PDT

•  Pelosi's save the internet page

  According to her staffers she had these guys in her office last night to lean on them to support Markey.

  http://www.democraticleader.house.go...

  by mpearl on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:39:01 AM PDT

•  FYI...... Jim Davis is running for FL Gov.

  He will face Rod Smith in the dem primary.

  by DemiGoddess on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:42:39 AM PDT

•  what about the new york reps?

  Cong. Towns, in a very safe seat in
  Brooklyn, voted the the wrong way according to that map  
  His Washington office is 202 225 5936.

  fax [phone]

  He has voted the wrong way on other bills like the bankruptcy bill.  I am sure the telecoms have donated to him.  I think New Yorkers should call his office.  It may get swamped because i was put on hold for almost 7-10 minutes.  But he may be able to be turned.

  The woman answering the phones was very sympatheitc to the censoring the internet argument, but she sounded like she had never heard of this issue.  Dan Grimaldi, an aide seems to be the person to speak with, but i only got voicemail.

  According to Matt Stoller Eliot Engel was on the committee, but I didn't see him on the map.  

  by debcoop on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:43:56 AM PDT

  •  Eliot Engel

    I see indeed that Eliot Engel is on the committee and so according to Matt Stoller voted the wrong way in the subcommittee.

    Here are his numbers

    Phone [phone]
    Fax   [phone]
    I know Eliot.  He's a good guy, mostly.  He should really be someone to vote the right way eventually. Unlike Towns, he has a conscience.  He's in Riverdale and Westchester.  We have readers from there. Call him.

    by debcoop on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:51:13 AM PDT

•  These are the R's

  Energy and Commerce Members for the 109th Congress

  Joe Barton, Texas
  Chairman

  Ralph M. Hall, Texas

  Michael Bilirakis, Florida
  Vice Chairman

  Fred Upton, Michigan

  Cliff Stearns, Florida

  Paul E. Gillmor, Ohio

  Nathan Deal, Georgia

  Ed Whitfield, Kentucky

  Charlie Norwood, Georgia

  Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

  John Shimkus, Illinois

  Heather Wilson, New Mexico

  John B. Shadegg, Arizona

  Charles "Chip" Pickering, Mississippi
  Vice Chairman

  Vito Fossella, New York

  Roy Blunt, Missouri

  Steve Buyer, Indiana

  George Radanovich, California

  Charles F. Bass, New Hampshire

  Joseph R. Pitts, Pennsylvania

  Mary Bono, California

  Greg Walden, Oregon

  Lee Terry, Nebraska

  Mike Ferguson, New Jersey

  Mike Rogers, Michigan

  C.L. "Butch" Otter, Idaho

  Sue Myrick, North Carolina

  John Sullivan, Oklahoma

  Tim Murphy, Pennsylvania

  Michael Burgess, Texas

  Marsha Blackburn, Tennessee

  by vome minnesota on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:44:00 AM PDT

  •  THANKS!

    Radanovich (sonobitch) is my rep. I'll call right now.

    by willers on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:21:20 PM PDT

    •  And, of course,

      The fucker is voting no on the amendment. EVIL. FUCK.

      PLEASE help free us from his evil grip!!! Support TJ COX in any way you can think of!!!!

      TJ Cox

      by willers on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:26:26 PM PDT

•  Is it just me...

  ... or does it seem like we keep fighting the same fights one right after the other? We beat drilling in ANWR and three months later we're fighting it again. Now it's the internet... didn't we just win a battle saving the internet? Now it's back again?

  Here's their strategy: they're going to wear us out. How many times can you build up the outrage... how many times can you rally the troops? I guess they figure if they keep trying to hammer this stuff through, eventually they'll catch us off guard. And you know what? They just might.

  by bhlogger on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:44:28 AM PDT

  •  You're exactly right

    Which is why it drives me absolutely stark raving bonkers yell at the ceiling for a half hour nuts that the Dems put up one little thing, it gets voted down, and they just shrug and go "oh well."

    I'm battling my own county DCC because the head of it is 100% convinced that impeachment is unworkable, can't ever happen, has no legal standing, will be voted down, etc etc etc so we have to spend ALL/100% of our efforts on the 2006 elections, period.

    WHAT. THE. FUCK.

    Yeah, that's how we got this country started, by throwing a bottle at the British troops, and then when they shot back we ran away and went "oh well."

    Because that's exactly what 80% of the Dems are doing right now on this kind of shit that you mentioned, bhlogger. ANWR, the internet, investigations, etc etc etc...

    You know what DID happen though? OFFLIST from the DCC list I'm on two people emailed me privately (PRIVATELY!) to say they supported impeachment, and did I want to go to the Sacramento thing this weekend (which, sadly, I cannot). The fact that they had to do it offlist out of view of the DCC leadership makes me both sad and angry. And it reminds me why I'm on the ballot in June to represent my district. Because our party is broken, and I'm gonna help fix it, goddamnit.

    by willers on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:16:32 PM PDT

•  These are the D's

  John D. Dingell, Michigan
  Ranking Member

  Henry A. Waxman, California

  Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

  Rick Boucher, Virginia

  Edolphus Towns, New York

  Frank Pallone Jr., New Jersey

  Sherrod Brown, Ohio

  Bart Gordon, Tennessee

  Bobby L. Rush, Illinois

  Anna G. Eshoo, California

  Bart Stupak, Michigan

  Eliot L. Engel, New York

  Albert R. Wynn, Maryland

  Gene Green, Texas

  Ted Strickland, Ohio

  Diana DeGette, Colorado

  Lois Capps, California

  Mike Doyle, Pennsylvania

  Tom Allen, Maine

  Jim Davis, Florida

  Jan Schakowsky, Illinois

  Hilda L. Solis, California

  Charles A. Gonzalez, Texas

  Jay Inslee, Washington

  Tammy Baldwin, Wisconsin

  Mike Ross, Arkansas

  by vome minnesota on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:44:52 AM PDT

•  and here's my question, mcjoan

  do we already know where most of these Reps. stand that we're focusing on four of them?

  by vome minnesota on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:45:30 AM PDT

  •  These are the most moveable

    on the full committee, hence the focus on them. Should the legislation pass as is out of full committee, then we put the full press on all our members.

    by mcjoan on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:47:05 AM PDT

    •  thanks.

      by vome minnesota on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:48:06 AM PDT

•  I called John Shadegg - AZ

  He is on the map as not declared yet.
  Since I am in Az, I figure its worth a shot. He is Repub..
  see http://johnshadegg.house.gov/...
  for contact info if you are in AZ

  by biscobosco on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:48:33 AM PDT

•  What About

  Brown, Sherrod (UD-OH)  202-225-3401   Unknown

  Unknown as to stance on net neutrality. Shouldn't this be a given for Mr. Brown? Why don't we make it so?

  by Dems2004 on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:48:54 AM PDT

•  contact has been made

  jan schakowsky's ofc called

  by wystler on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:58:14 AM PDT

•  I just called Blunts office

  and spoke to Brooke the Intern.  I asked what his stand was and she said he was undecided and stil taking calls.  I told her he needs to vote for network neutrality vs handing it over to the corporations.   Given Blunts history I am not holding my breath...

  Maybe we could make this a religious issue someway? Gotta figure out how to fire up all the fundamentalists on this.  

  by eAddict on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:58:20 AM PDT

•  For those of you that actually want to read

  the COPE act, you can find it here, via Common Cause. It has not been officially introduced yet, and so has not been assigned a bill number.

  by Spud1 on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:58:27 AM PDT

•  If you're not sure whether you live in one of...

  ...these districts, here's a quick rundown:

  Stupak's district includes Michigan's Upper Peninsula and rural North

  Allen's includes the Portland/Brunswick area

  Ross' comprises southern Arkansas

  Davis represents Tampa and part of St. Petersburg

  by Nathaniel Ament Stone on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:59:10 AM PDT

•  Quick grumble

  Kos sure bumped this off position #1 on the front page quick to bitch about Drudge. sigh. sometimes I wonder where his priorites are.

  by biscobosco on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 11:59:31 AM PDT

  •  It's ok

    people scroll down. There's been a huge amount of buzz all over about that Drudge post, so it's important to slap him (Drudge) down.

    by mcjoan on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:05:42 PM PDT

    •  Sorry, people don't scroll

      n/t

      by Cannabis on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:26:12 PM PDT

      •  I do!

        My mouse-wheel works just fine, thank you! I read every damned front-page report from the last time I was on to when I sign off.

        I ain't afraid t'scroll!

        Q.

        by Quotefiend on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:34:36 PM PDT

•  Since this affects

  everyone using the internet, why is it suggested to call representatives only if you live in their districts?  I plan to call based on the fact that I use the internet and want network neutrality protected.

  by notableabsence on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:07:10 PM PDT

•  Pretty sure that

  Tom Allen is supporting the Markey amendment. (sorry, I called and called and then forgot who I just called when they said he was supporting the amendment!).

  by notableabsence on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:12:08 PM PDT

  •  I called Allen, too n/t

    by Cannabis on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:27:02 PM PDT

•  Blatant self promotion...

  But, I think it is important to tell these reps that the premise that content providers get to use wires for free is patently false, as I commented in another diary linked below.

  It is a means for telecom companies to profit from or steal the inventions of others, while providing no additional value.  It very much resembles a protection racket. i.e. "It would be a shame if something were to happen to your packets."

  http://www.dailykos.com/...

  by Donner on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:13:04 PM PDT

•  It seems that

  the cable TV providers would hate this bill, as it allows telephone companies to basically steal what it has taken the cable companies years to build.

  Are they waging a war against it?

  by Spud1 on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:19:10 PM PDT

•  I called Mike Ferguson

  MF is always lock step on everything and really couldn't care less what the constituents want, but his office said they are getting a lot of calls and they're calling FOR net neutrality.

  by Lovo on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:25:05 PM PDT

•  This needs to be bumped to the top

  For more information please see:

  http://www.democraticleader.house.go...

  and:

  http://markey.house.gov/

  by Cannabis on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:41:43 PM PDT

  •  the

    Pelosi Link is in this thread at least three times. And she has a link to Markey's site from there.

    But I agree it should be up top...

    by iliketodrum on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:45:02 PM PDT

    •  Yes, but

      a lot of people read diaries without expanding them, me included. I have work to do, not just read here. Want action? Include everything you need in the diary/front page post and keep it above the fold.

      by Cannabis on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:23:33 PM PDT

•  Just called

  and spoke to one of Tom Allen's aides, he will be voting FOR the amendment.

  by Craig Burnham on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:41:47 PM PDT

•  Tom Allen

  I just called Tom Allen's office and was told that he will be voting for the Markey amendment.

  by brndlbxr on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:44:49 PM PDT

•  Called and E'd Rep Davis

  They took my information down, maybe they are paying attention?

  There's always hope!

  by Joes Steven on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:45:21 PM PDT

•  She's not on the list, but I called my rep anyway

  I want to make sure that all the Congresssional Offices know that we know and care about this.

  by Phoenix Woman on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:48:24 PM PDT

•  I live in Ross's District and I Just Called him

  I'm sending him and email as well.

  by arkbear on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:49:48 PM PDT

  •  UPDATE: I called his local office as well! **nm

    by arkbear on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 12:56:27 PM PDT

    •  What did they say?

      Hi Arkbear! Everything closed right now so I will be calling in the morning. He's my Rep also.

      by arkdem on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 04:40:24 PM PDT

•  I never thought I would be on the Cable side ever

    But in this case the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Even though Cable is guilty of anti-competitive BS, if the Telco's get their way you might as well kiss the small business person's internet sales goodbye. I will be calling the three congressmen from my state on this issue, and I suggest you call all of your state rep's and get the word out.

  by MarketCapitalistPig on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:00:32 PM PDT

•  Link to Live Debate

  Here is a link to the live debate on the proposed bill.

  by iliketodrum on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:06:57 PM PDT

•  Call Myrick's Office...

  Even though Bob Etheridge is my Congressman, figured it couldn't hurt. When I said to the nice intern that I wished to express my support of the Markey ammendment and 'net neutrality,' and said, 'I reckon you've heard a bit about it,' he laughed a tad and said, 'yeah, a little,' with the kind of exasperation that said 'it's the ONLY thing I've heard about today.'

  He asked if I had called Etheridge about the matter, and I assured him I had (did that last night/ web and this morning/ phone).

  Anyhoo.

  Can I do more?

  R

  From the fools gold mouthpiece
  The hollow horn plays wasted words

  by Randular on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:28:53 PM PDT

•  Does anyone have a link...

  to the argument on the other side, from a Democratic POV?  (Clearly, there must be one, since three Dems voted the other way.)  I just wonder about these things, because I remember another bill Markos was trying to push (that exempted political blogs from campaign finance reform laws), and when I researched into it, I agreed more with the other side.

  -Alan

  by SlackerInc on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:43:23 PM PDT

  •  the argument from the other side (telcos)

    Is that they want to make more money - seriously.

    They want to sell "enhanced" services.

    Right now there is no prioritization of traffic. They want to offer it as a service.

    Think of a line to get in a restaurant in Vegas. they have the "high-rollers" queue. You spend more to get a table faster.

    The solution now is for the restaurant to provide more tables so that no one waits, therefore you dont need the high-rollers line, and regular peoples line, because there is no line, and therefore no wait.

    Having a priority line is a way for the telcos to make more money on both ends (waitresses pay a bribe to get customers in and out the door quick and make more tips, customers pay to not wait in line) and also not have to invest in expanding the size of the restaurant and providing more cooks and tables.

    So as you see, the only one who likes this scenario is the restaurant (telcos) they make more money and do less work, and their main investment is not in improving service, but in paying the bouncers who monitor the queues.

    One main argument against this is "why spend the money paying the bouncers, when it costs the same or less to build more tables?"

    The telcos want to sink money into the technology necessary to monitor and restrict traffic flows, which would guarantee service for a select few, rather than in ensuring good service for everyone.

    by biscobosco on Thu Apr 27, 2006 at 10:10:34 AM PDT

•  Five Democrats Voted No on Markey

  The Democrats voting No on the Markey net neutrality amendment are Towns, Rush, Wynn, (Gene) Green and Gonzales.  Wilson is the only Republican to vote Yes.  Final vote:  22Y 34N

  by kcolburn on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 01:56:24 PM PDT

•  Dems that voted against it weren't on the list

  Maybe if they had been on the "call this dem" list on this diary, they would have gotten some more calls and with an issue with such small press coverage, those calls could have made a difference....obviously the amendment would have failed anyway thanks to the Repug majority but it's something to consider when votes come up, there's enough of us out here that it could have a real impact to list committee members to call before a vote in these diaries.  Good way to keep pressure on the Dems to stand up for progressive ideals and not succomb to Republicans and their lobbyists.

  Me likey!

  by Bushkills on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 02:40:31 PM PDT

•  This is just more Data Mining

  Clearly a financial boondoggle for Telcom as if they own and then regulate oxygen.

  This is also far more disconcerting in that the companies can and will further data mine users without warrants.

  People please keep track of the domestic warrantless wiretapping and e-mail screening done by the BushCo and NSA since 2003.

  Why is this not in the media spotlight?

  Forget the 16 words in the SOTU, If this isn't the impeachable evidence you need then all may be lost.

  http://www.eff.org/...
  http://www.eff.org/...

  by Heterodoxie on Wed Apr 26, 2006 at 02:55:35 PM PDT