Please consider voting for this story on Digg.

For the last few months, we at OpenLeft have been posting Democratic Senate challenger positions on net neutrality.  Since we started posting, we've been getting in statements and positions, from blogs like Cotton Mouth and the Political Base, from the candidates themselves, and from readers who took the time to ask and send in statements.  I'm happy to report that every single Democratic challenger with more than $500k in cash on hand has announced their support for net neutrality.  This is a milestone for the fight for internet freedom.  I included statements reacting to this news from Senator Byron Dorgan, Speaker Pelosi, FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein, Google public policy director Alan Davidson, and Columbia Law Professor Tim Wu.

It's quite sad how little attention this is getting outside the corners of the internet where tech-savvy people gather, but perhaps the media thinks those are the only people who would understand it.  The overriding theme, the sound bite, the message, it's loud and clear and it can't be argued against:

Internet Service Provider X shuts down access to deep dark portion of the Internet where only pedophiles hang out.  Your children are safer now!

You have carte blanche to do whatever you want in this country if you can somehow, in some vague way - with connections basic enough so Joe-casual-news-reader can understand - tie it into protecting the children.  If the appearance of the children being protected looks good enough, it doesn't matter what reality actually is.

Besides, a good portion of people out there probably have no idea what Usenet is.

Hey folks. Nancy Pelosi will be taking questions at Netroots Nation Saturday. Oddly, nobody had submitted a question yet about Net Neutrality, so I just did. Would be kinda embarrassing if we forgot to ask her about this at a netroots convention. Can you vote here and give it a thumbs up?

Here's the question:

The Bush FCC slated Net Neutrality for elimination. Barack Obama pledged in an MTV/MySpace presidential forum to make the re-instatement of Net Neutrality a priority for his first year in office. Will you make that same commitment and pledge to pass Net Neutrality legislation through the House in 2009?

Here's Obama asking a similar question, submitted by a MoveOn member, on MTV:

Please vote here today!

cross posted at The Ohm Project (Yes, we're back up thanks to you and Computer Tyme webhosting!)

Yesterday's hearings before Rep. Ed Markey's (D-MA) House Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet reminded those concerned about Internet privacy and free speech that there are a number of clear and present dangers coming from  several different sources, both private and public.

At one point, the CEO of NebuAd, a company that wants to get to know you better through "deep packet inspection" of your Internet traffic, objected to one of Chairman Markey's questions, claiming that it was the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife recently?"

Markey countered:

No, no, no, it's 'Have you stopped beating the consumer?' is the question.

The head of the Federal Communications Commission reported late Thursday that he was recommending harsh punishments for Comcast as a result of the company's violation of net neutrality practices.  The unfair blockage of Internet access caused a flood of criticism to come at Comcast, one of the largest Internet service providers in the country, and this site was one of the main sources of that criticism, which almost certainly caused this decision.

More below the fold.

Just got this from a press release issued by Rep. John Culberson's (R-TX) office. The press release focuses on a proposed new rule:

"that would prohibit Americans from viewing content published by Members of Congress on websites that are not "approved" by the Committee on House Administration, the panel that creates rules governing the internal operations of the U.S. House."

Whoah.....
Normally I would dismiss this as asshattery, but given what they are going to do to the 4th amendment today, I am no longer so sanguine about the House protecting our constitutional rights.  So I figured it was worth checking into.  Here is what I found:

Had been offline yesterday so had missed most of the FISA firestorm.  It seems really unlikely we will be able to get a bill signed this administration without telecom immunity.  So option no. 1 is not to pass anything. Option no. 2 is to pass the bill and let George veto it.  Both of these options will be used to bludgeon Democrats among low information voters.  But maybe we can get SOMETHING out of the deal.

This just in, from my CAD Google group, of all places.

Verizon has gotten permission from the New York Attorney General to block its subscribers from large portions of the Internet, in the name of "child-porn blocking". The Chinese-style access-controlled internet is fast on its way...

We know that we, the netroots, are miles ahead of DC politicians and the gasbag pundit class, with bloggers exposing truths the media never would have paid attention to, and activists working to turn electoral politics on its ear. Meanwhile, it seems like the establishment will never catch up. If this story is any indication, we're still miles and miles ahead:

From ReallySeriousNews.com

McCain Discovers the Internet

After two hours of busy signals, Republican nominee John McCain signed onto America Online late Saturday night, marking the 72-year old Arizona Senator’s first experience with the internet.

McCain, his interest piqued by an AARP commercial advertising its website, applied for a free AOL demo disc. After the program failed to run on his typewriter, he had staff direct him to a more advanced typing box, and after a number of hours spent playing solitaire, he picked the screen name MacDaddy08 and attempted to sign on.

Just yesterday I posted a diary about a story about Time Warner rolling out 'metered' internet usage that has received a decent amount of coverage. Some of the commenters were very skeptical that it directly correlated to Network Neutrality. To them I now ask that you drink a big glass of STFU.

Via Wired:

Comcast will begin testing what the cable concern has described as a "protocol agnostic" approach to managing bandwidth traffic during high-peak periods, Comcast said Tuesday.

Selected customers in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, and Warrenton, Virginia, are expected to receive e-mails on Wednesday highlighting the program. The 30-day tests are expected to begin Thursday.

Yes this has been diaried recently, but this NEEDS to be on the rec list as much as possible. Once this juggernaut gets some steam, it will be extremely difficult to rollback.

Via the AP:

NEW YORK (AP) — You're used to paying extra if you use up your cell phone minutes, but will you be willing to pay extra if your home computer goes over its Internet allowance?

Time Warner Cable Inc. customers — and, later, others — may have to, if the company's test of metered Internet access is successful.

On Thursday, new Time Warner Cable Internet subscribers in Beaumont, Texas, will have monthly allowances for the amount of data they upload and download. Those who go over will be charged $1 per gigabyte, a Time Warner Cable executive told the Associated Press.

...

"We think it's the fairest way to finance the needed investment in the infrastructure," Leddy said.

Firstly, i'd like to give very well deserved props to Kossack, rhfactor for current top rec'd diary, IT'S HERE! TimeWarner caps Tubes with tiered-bandwidth: 5g/$30
for calling this all to our attention.
Now, we've got an obligation to our democracy to get this crucial news out to the top Net Neutrality organizations who have been so effective on spreading the word in the recent past regarding such issues.

According to reports today from Ars Technica and earlier Jan 2008 stories from http://www.dslreports.com/...,
Time Warner's "Road Runner" cable web access will soon be changing their pricing model.

The lowest level of service is a 768Kbps connection with a 5GB cap for $29.95 per month. The high-end package will offer 15MBps with a 40GB cap for $54.90 per month. Consumers will pay by the gigabyte for consumption in excess of the established caps. Customers will be able to see how much bandwidth they have left by visiting the Time Warner Cable web site.

UPDATE 3:  6/3/08: comment, from the user crumb:
This is not a Network Neutrality Issue!

You thought the oil industry was screwing the rest of us, and you'd be right, but that's not all.

Democracy thrives only when the flow of information is as perfect as possible, but this too is under attack today.

Buried on page C3 in today's Boston Globe is Time Warner to test Web metering.

More beneath the fold...

eems Sen. Lieberman, who as we all know is a brilliant thinker, wishes to join Alaska's Senator Stevens in demonstrating his vast understanding of the Internet and how it works.

After reading the post quoted in full below from Privacy Forum listserv I subscribe to, I went to news.google.com, and found that there are a number of news reports on this, e.g.

Lieberman Wants Terrorist Content Yanked From YouTube

One article reports youtube has refused the Senator's request:
YouTube refuses Lieberman request

I guess my only question at this point, especially given the diary at top of the rec list at the moment Are YOU One of the 8 Million Targeted for Roundup? is, what part of 'these people are establishing a police state in America do you NOT understand at this point?'

If you can call the editorial page of the New York Times the big leagues, that is. The complicated and technical issue of net neutrality made a big splash in the news in the last Congress when Sen. Ted "Tubes" Stevens was threatening to end it. It's since faded some from the public view as more pressing legislative and policy battles loomed.

But several representatives and senators have been continuing their work on the issue, setting up the debate for the next session of Congress when we're likelier to have both a more responsive Congress and President. The NYT ed board opines:

There are several good net neutrality bills in Congress. One in the House, sponsored by Edward Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Charles Pickering, Republican of Mississippi, would give the job of preserving net neutrality to the Federal Communications Commission. A Senate bill sponsored by Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, and Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, takes a similar approach. This month, John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, and Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California, introduced a bill that would allow the Justice Department to bring antitrust actions against I.S.P.’s that violate net neutrality.

Using the F.C.C. is the more direct approach, since an agency could step in quickly to correct violations. An antitrust suit is a much more elaborate step for the government to take, but also adding net neutrality to the antitrust law would give the I.S.P.’s a strong incentive to respect the democracy of the Internet.

Cable and telecommunications companies are fighting net neutrality with lobbyists and campaign contributions, but these special interests should not be allowed to set Internet policy. It is the job of Congress to protect the Internet’s democratic form.

The Markey/Pickering (H.R. 5353) and Dorgan/Snowe (S. 215) efforts are the most straightforward and critical to ensuring the survival of net neutrality. Both have received hearings in their respective houses over the past month, building support and setting the stage for action in the next Congress, when hopefully the telcos and cable giants will have slightly less sway.

Update: You can take action in the ongoing people-powered net neutrality campaign by signing the petition at SavetheInternet.com or MoveOn.org.

I have written previously on issues of Net Neutrality, and the snowballing threats to freedom of expression and access to the Internet.

In those posts, among other references, I have pointed to the work of Lauren Weinstein, a prominent advocate of privacy and Internet freedom.

This morning's post to his Privacy Forum listserv to which I subscribe references a deeply disturbing issue that could seriously threaten the ability of anyone wanting remain anonymous while participating in discussion groups and forums to maintain that anonymity.

Although I personally have done everything but tell you my name and office number in my posts, I have still preferred to not totally expose myself. If you need a reason why, just read KOS report on the front page of this site today and sample the lovely email from Bill O'Reilly supporters he is receiving currently.

O'Reilly's hateful cadres

But on to today's topic below the fold.

It might come as no surprise to the online community, but Ted Stevens is best known outside of Alaska for his stance on net neutrality. Needless to say, when it comes to internet freedom, there is an ocean of difference between Ted Stevens and his opponent (and my boss) Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. Today Mark put out a very strong statement in support of keeping the internet free and open.

"Net Neutrality has allowed the Internet to drive economic innovation, democratic participation, and free speech online. I will protect and preserve net neutrality's level playing field, so that all Alaskans -- and all Americans -- can experience the vast social and economic benefits of an open Internet connection."

"Discriminatory pricing would turn the open internet into a toll road that serves only those companies that can afford the price. Access to the internet is no longer a luxury; it's a lifeline for many Alaskans."

"I will work to see that Congress adopts public policies that will protect net neutrality, preserve an open Internet and spur the growth of Alaska's economy."