Comments on: Support Net Neutrality

By: Demian

Demian — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 18:52:10 +0000

Here are a list of the democrats who voted against HR5273 If you are in their district, you might want to let them know
Ackerman
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cramer
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Etheridge
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry

Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pastor
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rahall
Ramstad
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sanchez, Loretta
Saxton
Schmidt
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (

By: Ben Ramsey

Ben Ramsey — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:30:42 +0000

I’m fully aware of that now, as I blogged about it here:
http://benramsey.com/archives/net-neutrality-defeated/

By: Bill McClellan

Bill McClellan — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 21:20:30 +0000

Ben evidently you are far from lucky as Rep. Linder voted against the Markey amendment (the litmus for Net Neutrality support and something he indicated he would support to you). Unfortunately, his opponent who blogged earlier is right on this one as the letter you got was deceptive. Full disclosure – I am a former GA resident and would not know Alan Burns from a housecat. However, I am involved with the Save the Internet Coalition. Vote below:

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 239

      H R 5252      RECORDED VOTE      8-Jun-2006      9:22 PM
      AUTHOR(S):  Markey of Massachusetts Amendment
      QUESTION:  On Agreeing to the Amendment

            Ayes Noes PRES NV 
Republican  11   211  8 
Democratic  140  58   3 
Independent 1
TOTALS      152  269  11

By: Brian Hill

Brian Hill — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 04:51:52 +0000

I support Net Neutrality!

By: Allan Burns

Allan Burns — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 19:29:21 +0000

Mr. Ben Ramsey:
In the interest of full disclosure, I will state that I am running for U.S. Congress in Georgia’s 7th District as a Democrat. Having no primary opposition, I will face John Linder in November. My personal experience with receiving responses from Mr. Linder’s office is a mixed bag. Not all of my letters have been responded to, and the responses in most case are inadequate. The letter you include is a typical John Linder response that doesn’t provide much in the way of specifics. Maybe I’m reading it wrong, but my interpretation is that John Linder will oppose regulation of the internet and allow the market to set pricing, which is the opposite of what you are supporting. I believe in free markets, but not without a limited amount of regulation. “Net neutrality” is a prime example of where government regulation is needed to protect the essence of what makes the internet such a powerful tool for free speech and the free exchange of ideas. Therefore, I will state in no uncertain terms that I support “net neutrality” and will support legislation that prevents companies from discriminating in data transmission speeds. If I were a member of Congress, I would support Rep. Edward Markey’s legislation, H.R. 5273, “which would preserve the open architecture of the Internet and prevent companies from downgrading and discriminating regarding Internet access and services.” It wasn’t clear at all from the letter in your post if John Linder would support this legislation. Maybe you should ask him.
Sincerely,
Allan Burns
Candidate for U.S. Congress
Georgia’s 7th District

By: Filip::Tech » Blog Archive » Net neutrality

Filip::Tech » Blog Archive » Net neutrality — Mon, 29 May 2006 10:23:00 +0000

[...] Ben Ramsey wrote a great post on net neutrality. He calls upon his readers to take action and contact their representatives in Congress about the issue. I strongly support his message, but I would also like to add a bit of international perspective. The internet and many other technology is (at least partly) under the control of the US government and US lawmakers. As a European internet citizen, I’m unable to vote in US elections. So far, they’ve done reasonably well, but it could be better. There already is a strong international movement that doesn’t want the internet under the control of the US government. [...]

By: Juvenall Wilson

Juvenall Wilson — Sun, 28 May 2006 17:09:53 +0000

As a proud member of the Libertarian party, I firmly believe that there are rare times when regulation is a requirement to maintain a free market. Considering that the vast majority of people are stuck between AT&T’s DSL or dial-up offerings or Comcast’s broadband with no alternatives, the normal market forces that keep regulation unnecessary just don’t apply here.

It’s also worth pointing out that should Neutrality be suppressed and companies like Amazon.com are forced to pay an “AT&T Tax”, do you think they’re just going to absorb that loss? No, they’ll pass it along to consumers. Funny how groups like “Don’t Regulate” and “Net Competition” fail to mention that.

As far as Bram Cohen goes, the article “Not An Objectivist” mentioned about is still on the front page. Basically, he’s against it because his business is working on a media deployment model that stands to make a lot of money from a tired system. While he says it’s possible Network Neutrality could hurt the fight against hackers and spammers, it’s clear he hasn’t even read the the bills being passed around. Both H.R. 5252 and H.R. 5217 (which passed the House Judiciary Committee just the other day) include exceptions that would allow ISPs to stop illegal activities. Ranting aside, here’s the Slashdot link:

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/27/139256

By: Ben Ramsey

Ben Ramsey — Sun, 28 May 2006 15:16:37 +0000

First of all, I’m not a Libertarian, though I do have strong libertarian beliefs about government. I am best categorized as an “independent,” if you want to label me. Secondly, I can’t seem to find anything on Slashdot where Bram Cohen said anything about Net Neutrality; please provide a link if you’re going to make a claim about what someone said. Finally, I have no clue what Republican representatives from Kentucky are about.

Yes, a true Libertarian would quite possibly disagree with Net Neutrality—not as a concept but as a law—simply because it is just another limitation placed upon us by government and it keeps us from freely doing business. A Libertarian might also say that, by allowing ISPs to charge for higher quality transmission of data to their end-users, we create better competition in the marketplace. In such a market, the consumer would ultimately decide who they want to do business with, and they would choose the ISP that provides the best possible service (i.e. the one that allows Web sites and companies free transmission of data across their lines).

However, while I would tend to agree with all of that, in the meantime, the consumer will suffer while we wait for an ISP that is much more competitive and offers better quality service to all Web sites. So, Net Neutrality is a freedom we enjoy, and if businesses are able to limit that freedom, then I think it is in the best interest of the citizens of this country if our Congress passes a law limiting the actions of corporations from infringing upon our freedoms.

By: Not An Objectivist

Not An Objectivist — Sun, 28 May 2006 06:10:22 +0000

Slashdot carried an entry about your fellow libertarian Bram Cohen saying that Net Neutrality is horrible.

Since the internet has already been developed with tax payer dollars and given free to the business community, why not allow them to continue and use us as suckers? isn’t that what R-KY congressperons are all about?

By: Ben Ramsey

Ben Ramsey — Sat, 27 May 2006 14:21:53 +0000

Yeah. Actually, every time I’ve contacted his office, he’s written me. It may just be an aid, but it’s always hand-signed by him.

By: Ligaya Turmelle

Ligaya Turmelle — Sat, 27 May 2006 09:02:36 +0000

Wow – a congressman who actually writes back (even if it was more then likely one of his aids instead)!