• Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.


Sicc OG
May 3, 2002

Please repost and pass this article around widely!

Folks the big vote on this Net Neutrality thing is tomorrow . June
22. Please call Your Senators... The Url to their websites and
offices are provided below...

I realize this issue comes across as boring and complicated. And
many of these articles are long, but it's important. If you do any
sort of business on the Internet THIS WILL EFFECT YOU in a BIG WAY.

The telecommunications companies are spending millions to swing
votes in their directions. They even went out and recruited Steve
Forbes to speak for them. yet you have not heard one peep about
this on the news. Why is that?

The article below explains in great detail some of the changes we
can expect if this thing passes the Senate. I know its long, but
you can read it at your leisure. In the meantime please call your
Senator. and make sure they are not siding with the
Telecommunications companies. Ask them that specifically because
they may try and skirt the issue like Senator Diane Feinstein did
when I called.

The fact that so many mainstream media outlets have ignored this
should tell you something. They stand to benefit by eliminating
bloggers and independent news sources who routinely upstage them via
the Internet. Again here is the Senator's addresses and phone

Davey D
[email protected]


Netted-Tomorrow June 22 is D-Day-Senate Votes on Net Neutrality
by Gabriel of

The Internet has been a conduit for unfiltered, unfettered freedom.
Bloggers and independent news sites have almost as much, if not just
as much of an impact as mainstream news sources. Traditional media
sources keep their ears and surfing fingertips sharp as they take
leads from less trained, more ingrained in community networking
hobbyists, who report the hot news of the hour. Millions of
Internet users search topics, looking for varying angles of every

Many times, traditional media sources have been tardy in reporting
important events. Those media sources that now have websites offer
blogs from reporters, message boards for instant responses of the
news, and updated commentary. Most offer video as well. The
traditional media learned how to interact with the people from
reporters who make nothing, or next to nothing monetarily, but due
to the Internet, have been able to reach a national and global

Small businesses have been able to have as elaborate websites as
huge corporations. Some of those small businesses have even grown
so big due to their success in their specific niche huge
corporations have bought them.

Independent musical artists can now be on the same stage as major
label stars, without paying a fee. My Space has established a
networking site that has enabled musicians to promote using the same
tools, regardless if their budget is $10 million, $10, 000, or $100.
All that is needed is an e-mail address. Once registered, music,
videos, blogs, show dates, lyrics, and pictures of the artist can be
made available, as well as event invitations and bulletins with
links to the online music stores and the artists website.

If the artist has an online store, then s/he can take care of
marketing and distribution alone. Now, major labels peddle their
artists on My Space and encourage them to post blogs, new music, and
videos. The artists who realize that this is free marketing and
promotion have learned to save on promotional budgets. The labels,
which most assuredly know this, also have learned to save on
promotional budgets, especially when many of their artists are
ignored at My Space in favor of independent artists.

Yahoo Video and You Tube offer sites where you can upload video,
then e-mail it or post it for the world to see. And it is free.
Google and Yahoo search topics for their users at no cost. Almost
infinite information is potentially a click away. This year, most
of what we have become accustomed to involving the Internet may be

On June 8th, 2006, the United States House of Representatives passed
the "Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enhancement (COPE)
Act of 2006." Sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), Rep.
Charles Pickering (R. Miss.), Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), and
Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the COPE Bill may
be a transition into a new era of the Internet.

Endorsed mainly by telecommunications companies, the COPE Act allows
for no hindrance to establishing a two-tiered Internet, where those
who pay for premium service get access to video, music, and certain
websites, while those who do not pay, get no such access, or lesser
quality access. The telecom companies claim that they are entitled
compensation because search engine companies like Google, and large
bandwidth sites like My Space, are using their "pipes" for free.
They also claim that without a two tiered Internet as a means for
profit, there is no incentive to invent more dynamic, faster
Internet services. From their outlook, innovation is frozen.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) offered an amendment to the COPE Bill that
would have prohibited a two tiered system, but it was voted down.
Opponents of a two tiered Internet fear that the telecom companies
are going to discriminate against content directly, or in
conjunction with rates that will relegate individual Internet users
in the slow lane of the Internet highway. They would rather see the
Internet as is, meaning without a tiered system, and the term they
use is net neutrality. They argue that if a company like Verizon
has a relationship with Yahoo, they may charge Yahoo a large fee for
bandwidth, which would be passed on to the user. Or, Verizon could
give Yahoo searches priority over Google, making Yahoos searches
faster. Search engines like Yahoo and Google favor net neutrality
because they do not want their users to have to pay for their
service, nor do they want the telecom companies to divvy up
bandwidth. They have grown and prospered utilizing the Internet in
its current state.

The issue of net neutrality is somewhat complex as Professor Michael
Rappa of North Carolina State University explained via e-mail. He
states that: " (1) the last decade of the commercial web has served
a very large cross-section of global society very well. Many people
should have a vested interest in protecting the Internet as a
resource which continues to flourish in a way that benefits the
community as a whole;

(2) the Internet is NOT only about commerce. Like all other large
and important networks, the interstate highway system for example,
[the Internet] needs to accommodate both the family on vacation and
the commercial 18-wheeler safely and without diminishing the
relative importance of either user." He goes on to state that "a
big part of the problem is that net neutrality means different
things to different people, and sometimes the lack of agreement over
what it is suits the parties to the debate just fine." That lays
out somewhat of an ambiguous description of what the net neutrality
debate is about.

Activists see the <b>COPE Act</b> and its rejection of net
neutrality as a signal of the end of the free Internet. Scott
Goodstein of concurs with that sentiment. was able to generate one million names on a
petition supporting net neutrality. Goodstein says that the telecom
companies are out for a "money grab." He points out that the U.S.
telecom companies claim to be the most advanced in the world and
that they need financial incentive in order to create faster speeds
and innovations, but the U.S. is actually behind in development.

"There are actually 15 countries ahead of the U.S. in the
percentage of its citizens who have access to broadband Internet
access," Goodstein said by phone. "The highest speed in the U.S.
is 1.5 megabits per second which is provided at a cost of around $30
per month. In France, users get 25 megabits per second for about $6
per month. In some Asian countries, customers are about to start to
receive 1000 megabits per second. The argument that U.S. telecom
companies need an end of network neutrality in order to provide more
than 6 megabits per second is absurd. Its a money grab." He also
points out that the telecom companies did not invent the Internet
and that they "have been subsidized millions of dollars by U.S.
taxpayers to provide universal broadband access, but have yet to

Possibly the darkest possibility if the Senate does not uphold net
neutrality, is that telecom companies will outright deny access to
certain voices. Telecom companies have been lobbying to assert a
free speech right based on a United States Supreme Court ruling that
first amendment speakers may not be compelled to provide a platform
for a different persons speech. In other words, if the telecom
companies do not agree with the position of a particular group or
individual, they do not have to make that group or individuals
position available to its customers.

The lists several instances in which
they claim Internet gatekeepers have discriminated against web sites
and services they disagree with. The first states that "in 2004,
North Carolina ISP Madison River blocked their DSL customers from
using any rival web-based phone service." The FCC addressed that
case, but the legal basis for the FCC ruling is no longer

Two other instances directly relate to silencing opposing
viewpoints. One states that "in 2005, Canadas telephone giant Telus
blocked customers from visiting a web site sympathetic to the
Telecommunications Workers Union during a contentious labor

The other states that "in April, Time Warner's AOL blocked all
e-mails that mentioned an advocacy campaign opposing
the company's pay-to-send e-mail scheme." Imagine those
applications in these days of media conglomerates and increased
presidential and federal governmental power. That is why such
diverse groups such as the Christian Coalition,, and Gun
Owners of America have joined the coalition.

Hip hop journalist Davey D has urged those in the hip hop community
to call their senators before the Senate takes up the Communications
Bill on June 22. He argues that "Those who sided with the Comcast
and Verizon are well aware that the ability of ordinary people to
communicate to the masses is a problem because its been the only
thing holding them accountable. For the last 5 years, the biggest
stories about government corruption, corporate swindles, global
warming and no weapons of mass destruction has come through Internet
bloggers who were able to push an issue to the masses and force Fox,
CNN and other news outlets to pay some sort of attention."

He further states "Anyone who is an activist and championed causes
ranging from election fraud and Diebold machines, police brutality,
freeing Mumia, global warming, media reform and saving the South
Central Farm in L. A. - just to name a few. This is will
especially hit you hard, because the internet and its neutrality
provisions have enabled many of us to counter biased mainstream
media outlets get information out about particular causes all over
the world."

The issue has been before us since discussions on Capital Hill began
last year. We have had plenty of time to mobilize and act, yet many
still do not know what is at stake. The Internet has been a place
for the hip hop nation to build and elevate beyond the mainstream
and a place for activists to organize. Now, it seems the days of
the Internet as we know it are numbered. As I am writing this
article, the Senate is preparing to take up the debate, and they
will be voting on June 22nd.

Davey D says, "Hip Hop is over 30 years old. We're not kids no
more. This industry is not run by kids. To not involve ourselves
in shaping the institutions that we rely on to get our information
and music out is irresponsible."

He is absolutely correct. Hopefully we have all called our


The vote is tomorrow...


Sicc OG
Feb 2, 2006
i have a feeling this legislatin will pass :(
blame that 80 yr old bastard from alaska ted stevens
i bet he knows nothing about the internet or how its run
shouldnt somebody 35 yrs old or so be incherge of that commitee