NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to regulate the Internet and ISPs
Pardon the digression off-topic, but the ad hominem is just so much fun I
can't resist. If this sort of thing bores you, delete. Maybe we can get back
to something real in a little bit.
I frankly don't know all of people and organizations who sponsors ITIF, or
to what tune, since the issue of doing their bidding has never come up. From
what I've heard, we have sponsors on every side of the issue, so this notion
of coin-operated lobbying is pretty silly.
But it's jaw-droppingly amazing that Karr would complain about ITIF
redacting donor names when his employer does exactly the same thing. Their
990 is on-line, so go see for yourself:
http://www.freepress.net/files/FP_990_combined_Final.pdf
They have contributors writing checks for $500,000 or there abouts (some
even higher) identified only as "person" on the forms. I don't know that
many concerned citizens throwing around checks for such sums, so I'm going
to hazard a guess that some these "persons" have skin in the game.
There are people at Free Press who are capable or talking about issues, such
as Ben and Derek. Unfortunately, they aren't the ones we're hearing from
these days.
Richard Bennett
[ OK, now Richard has had his say too, so this thread is closed for now.
Anyone interested in following more on this can visit the
associated organization sites directly.
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]
-----Original Message-----
From: George Ou [mailto:george_ou@lanarchitect.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 3:13 AM
To: 'Tim Karr'; 'Lauren Weinstein'
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458,Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to
regulate the Internet and ISPs
Tim, you and your group and been lying through your teeth about Net
Neutrality being all about net censorship. Every time I point this out
during debates and you always dodge the questions and resort to attacking
the messenger rather than the message. You have not refuted a single
argument Richard Bennett has made, and Bennett has been making the same
points for years long before working in public policy. He has spoken
honestly as an engineer, and even people like Larry Lessig has come out and
stated that he is opposed to Net Neutrality proposals that ban
differentiated pricing. We've had enough of your tired old tactics.
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Karr [mailto:tkarr@freepress.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2009 2:31 AM
To: George Ou; 'Lauren Weinstein'
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing
to regulate the Internet and ISPs
Right. Seems George didn't read my post, or the many substantive arguments
Free Press has put forward in the past four years. I can direct you to these
again (see below) but it doesn't seem that you intend to read them.
Ad Hominem attack? This is the standard response of those who get caught
with their hands in the telco cookie jar.
I'm OK with groups that openly admit to taking this money. But less OK with
groups like ITIF that routinely conceal their funding in order to give off a
scent of independence. I think that's being intellectually dishonest and
intend to call them out whenever appropriate.
And, Yes, I am paid for my work, but I left a higher-paying job to do it and
have turned down better-paying offers since. (Working for public interest,
not-for-profits keeps you out of the poor house, just barely).
>From its inception, Free Press has taken no money from industry,
>industry
groups, political parties or government. We have held firm to that in the
belief that you can't honestly advocate for the public interest while taking
money from those who have a financial or political stake in an opposite
outcome.
Free Press does receive money from foundations, the list of which is freely
available on our Web site. This includes the Ford Foundation, the
Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and more than
60 other charitable foundations. (George Soros' Open Society Institute is
among these, so put on your tin foil hats).
We are also supported by more than 12,000 individual Free Press Action Fund
members. The average size of an individual donation is $48.
If you want to help the fight for public interest policies and an open
Internet, go here:
> www.freepress.net/donate
Tim
= = = = =
Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
Free Press :: www.freepress.net
SavetheInternet.com :: www.savetheinternet.com FreeMyPhone ::
www.freepress.net/FreeMyPhone
201.533.8838
reform media. transform democracy.
-----Original Message-----
From: George Ou [mailto:george_ou@lanarchitect.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 9:41 PM
To: Tim Karr; 'Lauren Weinstein'
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing
to regulate the Internet and ISPs
Tim, coming from someone such as yourself who's paid to advocate for Net
Neutrality using any means necessary even if it means deceiving the public
that Net Neutrality is all about net censorship, this is very hypocritical.
This is typical of you turning any debate on Net Neutrality into a ad
hominem attack rather than actually address the issues being raised. This
shouldn't really surprise me because that's pretty much all you've had to
offer.
George
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Tim Karr
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2009 4:05 AM
To: Lauren Weinstein
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to
regulate the Internet and ISPs
Here's a tidbit you won't find on the ITIF Web site. They make an extra
effort to hide their sources of funding. Though one intrepid Reuters
reporter managed to drag it out of them:
"[ITIF] gets some funding from industry, including International Business
Machines Corp and Cisco Systems Inc, and also is supported by
telecommunications companies."
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN0749664720090107
I know that some believe it unfair to attack the messenger and not the
message. But you can't divorce one from the other, especially when the
messenger deliberately hides funding sources that would raise
conflict-of-interest concerns about its "research."
Sadly, coin-operated think tanks like ITIF are a dime a dozen in D.C. One
hopes that their pay-to-play policy operatives will be exposed in the new
era of transparency. But groups like ITIF seem to prefer business-as-usual
to a more open discussion.
Putting that aside for the moment, the argument for Net Neutrality is far
more than just "feel good" or "broad brush." Net Neutrality is a principle
rooted in decades of communications policy. The legislation takes this
history into full account, while also recognizing the need for network
operators to resolve technical issues needed to maintain network
reliability. Importantly, it protects Internet users from the types of
"network management" that would give a discriminatory advantage to certain
lawful Web sites, services or applications over others.
Bennett's mantra has been that the Internet is not a policy concern; that
its future should be determined entirely by network engineers (The bulk of
whom happen to be on the payroll of Internet providers whose motives are
less than democratic). For Bennett there's no apparent conflict here, nor
middle ground.
The Internet Freedom Preservation Act helps define nondiscriminatory network
management in a way that balances consumers need for openness and
connectivity with the networks need to evolve with changing technology and
increasing capacity.
Those arguing against Net Neutrality often forget that the Internet's most
groundbreaking innovations have occurred at the network's edges in an open
Web ecology that allows the best ideas to rise and fall based on the numbers
of people who connect to them and use them. Sure, we also need innovation in
the way packets move across this network, but not at the expense of this
great marketplace of ideas.
Free Press argument for Net Neutrality has been put forward in great detail.
For anyone wanting to exchange their broad brush with a fine-toothed comb, I
encourage you to read "Changing Media: Public Interest Policies for the
Digital Age:"
http://freepress.net/files/changing_media.pdf
..or any of our related congressional testimonies, FCC comments,
whitepapers and reports:
http://twurl.nl/r3jhmt
Tim
= = = = =
Timothy Karr
Campaign Director
Free Press :: www.freepress.net
SavetheInternet.com :: www.savetheinternet.com FreeMyPhone ::
www.freepress.net/FreeMyPhone
201.533.8838
reform media. transform democracy.
-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+tkarr=freepress.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+tkarr=freepress.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of Lauren
Weinstein
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 6:20 PM
To: Richard Bennett
Cc: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to
regulate the Internet and ISPs
On 08/24 14:56, Richard Bennett wrote:
> I dare you to post this to NNSquad.
Richard,
I don't take dares, but I would have posted your note anyway. However, to
save time, I'll annotate as we go ...
On 08/24 14:56, Richard Bennett wrote:
> Gee, Lauren, that's a fairly weak analysis. Instead of addressing any
> of
my
> points, you simply play the ad hom card against not only me but the
> ITIF, the organization I've been with for two whole months now. People
> who've
been
> following this debate know that my objections to broad-brush,
> feel-good regulation are primarily technical, and not in any way
> related to my opinions on Obamacare, global warming, gay marriage, or
> anything else. I'm in favor of the public option, by the way.
I note that you didn't address what I actually mentioned, which was your
translating into a "P2P mandate" the quite reasonable requirement for
adequate bandwidth to and from *legal* user applications, but hey, what the
hell, we can let that pass for now.
> The Internet is an unfinished demo that needs a lot more work before
> it
can
> serve the needs of civil society and the 21st century citizen. Good
network
> engineers know this, and it's been said on this list several times by
> Bob Frankston. It also needs a lot of investment in the US to bring it
> up to
the
> top global standard. ITIF and I have both criticized the state of
broadband
> feeds and speeds in the US compared to the best global alterntives.
> See
our
> report on Explaining International Broadband Leadership for the facts:
> http://www.itif.org/index.php?id=142
Unfinished demo, eh? Seems like there's a slap in the face to a whole lot
of network engineers and entrepenours in that statement. But since you
invoked Bob, I invite him publicly to explain whether his vision of how the
Internet should look (which I believe I understand pretty well and in many
ways I agree with in theory) is anything like the sort of vision you've
outlined in the past.
I also invite interested readers to explore the ITIF Web site (
http://www.itif.org/ -- [free publicity!]) and draw their own conclusions
about the orientations of the organization.
> So here's the deal Lauren: if you want to do the ad hom thing, get
> your facts right; but it's best if you deal with the substantial
> issues in the debate instead of slinging mud.
If any mud was slinging, it was landing on Markey, and not by my hand.
I think that his Internet legislation is a great idea. I wish I could vote
for him. But I'm sure that the good Congressman can take care of himself
without my assistance.
--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein
lauren@vortex.com
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
http://www.pfir.org/lauren
Co-Founder, PFIR
- People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder,
NNSquad
- Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP -
Global Coalition
for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org Founder,
PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and
Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
- - -
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lauren Weinstein [mailto:lauren@vortex.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 2:03 PM
> To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
> Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: H.R. 3458,Rep. Markey's third bill proposing
> to regulate the Internet and ISPs
>
>
> Greetings. I must admit that I am mystified regarding the message
forwarded
> below. I know that Seth is not a big fan of P2P. But it's beyond
> even my imagination how he can find a problem in wording that supports
> the provisioning of adequate bandwidth for *legal* Internet services
> to and
from
> users.
>
> Major ISPs *have* been increasing upstream bandwidth. Time Warner
> around here in L.A., without any fanfare at all (and I think some
> fanfare would have been in order), doubled max upstream rates to 2Mb
> within the last couple of weeks.
>
> On the other hand, with so many ISPs implementing port blocking and
> non-traffic-sensitive anti-server restrictions in their TOS that are
> technically unjustifiable, that upstream bandwidth is frequently
> hobbled from the word go.
>
> By the way, regarding Richard Bennett's predictable blast at Markey's
latest
> effort to reign in ISP abuses:
>
> http://www.internetevolution.com/document.asp?doc_id=180730
>
> I can't resist noting the interesting aspects of ITIF for whom he's a
> research fellow.
>
> Not only does ITIF generally seem opposed to Internet regulation, but
their
> policy papers tend to play down the value that increased genuine
competition
> would have in the ISP marketplace, and seem to suggest that we really
don't
> have it so bad after all.
>
> Sounds a lot like the kinds of arguments that the health insurance
industry
> has been selling to Congress.
>
> It's a wonderful world! You have it great! Now shut up, take what we
deem
> fit to provide, and pay us!
>
> --Lauren--
> Lauren Weinstein
> lauren@vortex.com
> Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800
> http://www.pfir.org/lauren
> Co-Founder, PFIR
> - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org
> Co-Founder, NNSquad
> - Network Neutrality Squad - http://www.nnsquad.org Founder, GCTIP
> - Global Coalition
> for Transparent Internet Performance - http://www.gctip.org
> Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee
> on Computers
and
> Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
> Twitter: https://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
>
>
> - - -
>
> On 08/24 12:58, David Farber wrote:
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf@sethf.com>
> > Date: August 24, 2009 12:11:38 PM EDT
> > To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
> > Cc: ip <ip@v2.listbox.com>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] H.R. 3458, Rep. Markey's third bill proposing to
> > regulate the Internet and ISPs.
> >
> >> http://www.freepress.net/files/H.R.3458-7-31-09.pdf
> >
> > Note page 10 seems to contain a P2P support *mandate*!!!:
> >
> > "(g) OTHER SERVICES.--Not later than 180 days
> > after the date of enactment of the Internet Freedom Pres-
> > ervation Act of 2009, the Commission shall complete all
> > actions necessary to--
> > "(1) promote an ever-increasing level of Inter-
> > net access service to end users;
> > "(2) ensure that such evolving level of service
> > provided to end users is capable of supporting lawful
> > content, applications, and services and provides
> > ample bandwidth for such traffic to and from an end user;
> >
> > Also relevant is the press release:
> >
> > http://markey.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=37
> > 63
> > &Itemid=141
> >
> > July 31, 2009: REPS. MARKEY, ESHOO INTRODUCE BILL TO PRESERVE FREE
> > AND OPEN INTERNET
> >
> > Washington, D.C. ... Reps. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) and Anna G. Eshoo
> > (D-CA) introduced a bill today that will establish overarching
> > national broadband policy and ensures an open and consumer oriented
> > Internet.
> >
> > "The Internet is a success today because it was open to everyone
> > with an idea," said Rep. Markey. "That openness and freedom has
> > been at risk since the Supreme Court decision in Brand X. This bill
> > will protect consumers and content providers because it will restore
> > the guarantee that one does not have to ask permission to innovate."
> > "The Internet has thrived and revolutionized business and the
> > economy precisely because it started as an open technology," Rep. Eshoo
said.
> > "This bill will ensure that the non-discriminatory framework that
> > allows the Internet to thrive and competition on the Web to flourish
> > is preserved at a time when our economy needs it the most."
> >
> > H.R. 3458, the Internet Freedom Preservation Act, is designed to
> > assess and promote Internet freedom for consumers and content
> > providers. The bill will also require the FCC to examine whether
> > carriers are blocking access to lawful content, applications, or
> > services. The legislation calls for the FCC to conduct eight public
> > broadband summits around the country no less than a year after the
> > bill is enacted. These summits will be used to gather input from
> > consumers, small business owners, entrepreneurs, and other
> > stakeholders on Internet freedom and U.S. broadband policies
> > affecting consumer protection, competition, and consumer choice.
> > ...
> > A full text of the bill can be found here:
> > http://markey.house.gov/images/PDFs/netneutralitybill.pdf
> >
> >
> > --
> > Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com
> > Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/
> > Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> > RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> > Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
>