Last Bump Before Election Day!

Wow Binky! I didn't realize that, thanks!

I noticed that too. But that's not just a slogan- that's the name of his political party.
Talk about a one issue candidacy! And what an issue!

I wanted to bump this up because I just received my sample ballot in the mail.

Mr. Sires is on it. Since he has chosen to side with Comcast and their ilk, I will vote for someone else.

Maybe even the guy with the slogan "I have proof NSA did 911"

Point well taken, thank you.

BassFace I agree with those 7 talking points and all, but I don't believe the FCC is the entity that will provide and ensure that the "internet remains open".

Just this month the FCC favored the MPAA and Cable TV companies to shut off outputs on set top boxes. How "open" is that?

I think this should be less about the politicians and more industry experts joining in the debate and coming to a compromise.

I will be looking at cutting my Cable and using the EVO fone from Sprint for my Internet (and tv programming) needs.

Sounds great, Swooshy!!

Well he can count on one LESS vote when he runs again. We need national donor charts to show exactly HOW MUCH these guys get from their corporate contributors before the elections. Or, as Jim Hightower suggested, they should have to wear the logos (like Nascar drivers) of every corporate interest they took money from.

Here is some relevant information I found.

I understand your concerns for not standing with the FCC without reading the details. Yet, I don't see why you would agree with the corporation after seeing the proof that profits are more important than the free flow of information. Haven't you been around to see the disaster that is Wall Street today? Do you think the ISP's would treat this as anything else other than a cash hose?
That is quite contradictory on your part, in my opinion.

------------------------------------------------------------------

THE IMPORTANCE OF ?NET NEUTRALITY?

Background: ?Net neutrality? is the term used to describe the concept of keeping the
Internet open to all lawful content, information, applications, and equipment. There is
increasing concern that the owners of the local broadband connections (usually either the
cable or telephone company) may block or discriminate against certain Internet users or
applications in order to give an advantage to their own services. While the owners of the
local network have a legitimate right to manage traffic on their network to prevent
congestion, viruses, and so forth, they should not be able to block or degrade traffic based
on the identity of the user or the type of application solely to favor their interests.
Legislation is under review in Congress that would ensure that the Internet remains open.
The following are some proposed points to make to legislators and their staff as Congress
considers this issue.

Important Points

1. Net neutrality is fundamentally important to allowing universities fulfill
their educational mission. Universities? goal is to deliver high-quality
multimedia instructional material to as many students as possible,
including off-campus students and those in rural areas. The widespread
availability of open, affordable broadband communications makes
distance learning more accessible and effective.

2. Universities? Internet research laboratories could be undermined if the
Internet is not open to innovation and experimentation. Universities are
developing next-generation Internet technologies that will drive the
Internet economy. If Internet service providers are allowed to inhibit or
degrade these research activities, the United States could lose its
leadership role in the creation of Internet-based technologies.

3. The rapid innovation that brought us e-mail, the World Wide Web,
interactive online services, and e-commerce depends on an Internet that
provides reliable and effective transport for all types of traffic. This
critical innovation at the edges of the network will be stifled if network
providers are allowed to block or degrade traffic in the middle.

4. The Internet was designed to be open and available to everyone, which is
why it has been so powerful and successful. The Internet was not intended
to be under the control of any one party; its value is that it can facilitate
communications and the free flow of information around the world.
"Tollbooths and gatekeepers are the exact opposite of what the Internet is
all about," said Michael J. Copps, a Democratic commissioner at the
Federal Communications Commission. "Down that route consumers can
count on paying more and getting less ? less content, fewer services and
reduced innovation."

5. Cable and telephone companies have the ability and incentive to skew
Internet use toward their own services. They are supposed to be
transparent carriers of broadband services, as noted by Vint Cerf in a letter
to Congressmen Joe Barton and John Dingell on November 8, 2005:
?Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network
operators should not dictate what people can do online.? Recently,
however,
a. a telephone company blocked its broadband customers from using
VoIP telephone service because it could take revenue away from the
company?s phone services;
b. a cable company ordered consumers working from home to stop using
their broadband connection to log into their employer?s virtual private
network and tried to sell them a higher-priced alternative service;
c. an Internet provider in Canada blocked access to a Web site run by the
labor union involved in a dispute with the ISP; and
d. the CEO of SBC told Business Week that companies such as Google,
Yahoo, and Vonage would not be permitted to connect to SBC
broadband customers without additional compensation to SBC.

6. Cable and telephone companies have a legitimate right to manage their
networks to prevent congestion, viruses, or other illegal uses. This right to
manage the network, however, should be narrow and should not allow the
cable and phone companies to pick and choose among certain users or
applications.

7. Congress should adopt a strong principle that ensures that the Internet is
open to all lawful uses and should establish strong penalties to enforce this
principle.

Net Neutrality is really a lose/lose situation.
You either have the ISP's controlling broadband or the FCC. Basically the FCC will regulate ISP's the same way they do phone networks. It's not as black and white as politicians selling out to cable giants. The FCC in control to me seems like a lot more red tape to go through than the cable companies being in control. So go ahead sign the petition if you rather the FCC be the regulator.

But personally won't sign anything until I see an actual plan of action from the FCC instead of bullet points that favor their cause.

Politicians siding with their biggest financial supporters? Corporations caring only about profits?

What kind of sick, twisted place has this world become?

Also signed the petition. Shame on these people for voting in favor of big business and not the people they are supposed to represent.

Hope more people get involved in this cause. Comcast, Verizon and AT&T simply want more money and profits. Nothing else is important.

Signed, commented and forwarded!

If this isn't pay-to-play, I don't know what is. By the time these crooks are done, we will be paying a few cents per every thread we read here. Disgusting.

All these politicians are getting BIG BUCKS from the telcom industry.

So of course they would sign the letter.

They no longer care about the consumer, the individual, the citizens of their district and their community.

WHICH IS WHY WE SHOULD BOOT ALL INCUMBENTS AND DEMAND TERM LIMITS.

They are supposed to be representing THE PEOPLE, but have become beholden to the corporation - who outsources their jobs overseas anyway.

That is wrong.

FG

Note sent

https://forms.house.gov/sires/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Albio Sires has joined 73 other Democrats in signing an industry-written letter telling the FCC to abandon its efforts to protect Internet users and stop big companies from blocking Internet traffic.

That Rep. Sires would intentionally sell out the public may be hard to imagine. Perhaps these representatives didn?t know what they were signing. Or perhaps this is just business as usual, another D.C. betrayal of the public trust. (Is it any wonder the latest Gallup public opinion poll counts a congressional disapproval rating of 73 percent?)

These members of Congress acted on blind faith that phone and cable companies have the best interests of Americans in mind.

But Comcast and AT&T can no better police themselves to protect the open Internet than BP can police itself to protect the oceans. And we already know how that's going!


PLEASE CLICK LINK BELOW:

http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/74_dems/?rc=tw2